deprecated subtag 'bjq' and others

[Doug Ewell]

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> Note that the macrolanguage assignment for 'bjq' was not removed in
> ISO 639-3.
> { but it will be in the fall, right?  So I suggest the following }
>
> => ?? "Note that the macrolanguage assignment for 'bjq' has not been yet removed"

We can't predict whether ISO 639-3/RA will actually do this.  I can
change it to "was not removed in ISO 639-3 as part of this change" and
that will leave the door open for the future.

> For the subtag [BQ],
> "Description: Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba"
>
> { Could not there be an additional comment between "Sint Eustatius" and "and Saba"? }

I guess you meant "comma."  Although I'm personally a fan of the serial
comma, and although Section 3.1.5 allows descriptions from core
standards to be edited "to correct irregularities in formatting (such as
misspellings, inappropriate apostrophes or other punctuation, or
excessive or missing spaces)," I don't think this particular case is
egregious enough to warrant such editing.  Others are welcome to opine
here.

> "This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective
> 2010-05-18, retiring the code element 'tie' for Tingal as a dialect
> of Tegali ('ras') and not a separate language."
>  { COMMENT:  Sorry; I was at first confused by the wording of the above.  What about the following? }
> => ?
>
> "This registration tracks a change made to ISO 639-3 effective
> 2010-05-18, retiring the code element 'tie' for Tingal, which is now classified as a dialect
> of Tegali ('ras') and not a separate language."

I agree that this is clearer, and will make this change.

Thanks for your input and for reviewing the forms.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­