Missing subtags 003 and 172

Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Sat Jul 31 00:15:27 CEST 2010

Den 2010-07-31 00.04, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:

> On 30 Jul 2010, at 22:45, Kent Karlsson wrote:
>> I did object, see
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2010-July/010469.html
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2010-July/010473.html
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2010-July/010478.html
>> None of these were responded to (w.r.t. sa/san being Classical Sanskrit),
>> that I noticed anyway. I don't think "we" can interpret sa/san any wider just
>> for LSR. 
> I saw it. ISO 639 says "sa" and "san" are "Sanskrit"
> (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php) and I accepted John
> Cowan's rationale about hypernyms and hyponyms.

And that would have been fine had it been so in this case. But apparently
sa/san is EQUIVALENT to Classical Sanskrit. "Classical Sanskrit" is listed
under **aliases** (not under hyponyms, dialects, or similar) in

    /Kent K

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list