Changing definition of German (was: Re: ISO 639-3 releases list of 2009 changes)
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Sat Jan 23 20:04:54 CET 2010
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.
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages