Changing definition of German (was: Re: ISO 639-3 releases list of 2009 changes)

[Mark Davis ☕]

It appears not to make much difference; they blithely did it with
Lithuanian. The discussion with respect to German has gotten off track; my
view is that they should have treated ALL ISO 639-2/1 codes as if the
language name were prefixed by standard; Standard French, Standard Arabic,
Standard Chinese. Then we wouldn't always be faced with the potential
instability of changing a perfectly normal language code into a macrocode.

But I agree that this discussion is pointless, and I'll say no more on it.

Mark


On Sat, Jan 23, 2010 at 10:55, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> Mark Davis 🍵 <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not making myself clear.
> >
> > If the argument is that ISO 639-3 can't make a change in X *because
> > **the Ethnologue says Y, *it doesn't hold water, because the
> > Ethnologue is neither part of nor normatively referenced by ISO 639-3.
>
> To paraphrase myself from earlier, if ISO 639-3/RA is considering a
> change with which one or more of us disagrees -- say, hypothetically,
> converting 'deu' to a macrolanguage -- then we should lobby ISO 639-3/RA
> to reject the change request, not discuss it to death on this list
> before it has even been requested.
>
> Please let's change the Subject line when appropriate.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100123/b5a87894/attachment.htm