ekl - Kol (Bangladesh)

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Fri Aug 10 22:59:28 CEST 2012

"Gordon P. Hemsley" <gphemsley at gmail dot com> wrote:

>> 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?

I just want to make sure the big batch of changes goes in this weekend,
and doesn't get sidetracked. If there are concerns, such as here, it
might be less confusing to hold those subtags until after the big batch
is out of the way.

Melinda confirmed for me that from a 639-3 standpoint, "just plain Kol"
is still one of the official names for this languages; it's just not the
Reference Name. It's not genuinely ambiguous, in that no other language
has just "Kol" as a name, but it could mislead a human reader.

I'm not aware of any other genuinely ambiguous names in the Registry; if
you find any, please send examples.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
http://www.ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list