deprecated subtag 'bjq' and others

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, thanks again; everything looks great as is; I agreed with your suggestions.
Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Wed Aug 3 19:45:36 CEST 2011
> 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.
Fine with me.
>> 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 serialSorry, my typo; good guess on your part. 
> 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.Keep this w/out the serial comma then, as that's how it is recorded  (also my goof).>> "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.
> Thanks for your input and for reviewing the forms.
Thank you -- no errors really on your part.  A few other notes:  Part 4 of changeshttp://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2011-August/011070.html
1.  Regarding 'bib' ("Bisa", "Bissa")Identifier:	bibNames:	 Bisa
Bissa

{QUESTION:  Should Bisa or Bissa be first?; Bissa was the original name provided, and I tend like you to think it should go first, but the registry has Bisa first:
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=bib }
Do whatever you feel best here (leaving it "Bissa" first is fine with me).
2.  As for [tie]'s having a change date under item 6 of 2010-05-18, the others showing this date are all in the first set of changes http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2011-August/011067.htmlI assume these are the ones you are referring to.Best,--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­



 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20110805/99d5a75f/attachment.html>