ekl - Kol (Bangladesh)

Gordon P. Hemsley gphemsley at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 22:00:42 CEST 2012

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
>> It seems to me to not be a good idea to list the bare "Kol" as a
>> secondary description for "Kol (Bangladesh)" simply because of a
>> mistake. It would be unfair to the other languages named "Kol", and
>> would be duplicate information for no useful gain, IMO.
> If it weren't in the official ISO 639-3 data file, I would agree that
> leaving plain "Kol" would be, maybe not unfair, but certainly confusing,
> given the existence of "Kol (This)" and "Kol (That)". (Remember that
> this is the situation the Registry is already in; ISO 639-3 is helping
> out here!)
> BCP 47 says that Description fields for code elements based on an
> external standard, like primary language subtags, are "initially taken
> from that source standard." The word "initially" is important; it
> doesn't say all of those Description fields must stay in the Registry
> forever, and in fact:
> "The source standard's descriptions MAY be edited or modified, either
> prior to insertion or via the registration process, and additional or
> extraneous descriptions omitted or removed."
> So we can either withdraw the change to 'ekl' now (which I suggest, for
> simplicity), or we can add "Kol (Bangladesh)" now and revisit the issue
> of deleting "Kol" at a later time.

Well, I'm of the opinion that all ambiguous names in the Registry
(such as "Kol") should be disambiguated somehow. I don't have any
particular preference for how that is done, however; if you want to
deal with separately, that's fine—the question is, is it more
confusing to not take this particular change now?

Gordon P. Hemsley
me at gphemsley.org

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list