Missing subtags 003 and 172

[Michael Everson]

On 30 Jul 2010, at 23:15, Kent Karlsson wrote:

>> 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
> http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/san.

So? The Linguist List is not ISO 639, and ISO 639 say that "san" is "Sanskrit". They could use san-vaidika now, instead of 091.



Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/