proposed ISO 639 change for "arn"

[Mark Davis ☕]

BCP47 enforces stability, so whether deprecated or 'withdrawn', it would
stay in BCP47. And that is the primary vehicle for ISO 639.

Deprecations generally just cause problems, from software just not
accounting for it. So it is best avoided where possible. It would be better
to just leave it as arn = Mapudungun


Mark <https://plus.google.com/114199149796022210033>
*
*
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
**



On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 2:24 PM, Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Phillips, Addison <addison at lab126.com>
> wrote:
> >> On 10 December 2012 20:50, Gordon P. Hemsley <gphemsley at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Why not just deprecate the code and issue a new one? Isn't there
> >> > precedence for that?
> >>
> >> Hebrew (iw --> he), Indonesian (in --> id), and Yiddish (ji --> yi)
> come to mind.
> >> (Though I don't know the procedure that was used there.)
> >>
> >
> > BCP 47 actually has several things to say about this. First off, this is
> explicitly allowed. However, Section 3.3, in describing what is allowed,
> suggests that ISO 639 would need to withdraw the code 'arn' (although it
> doesn't say so quite that directly). If a new code were created for 'arn',
> the existing code could, in theory, be deprecated with a new
> Preferred-Value even if ISO 639 did not withdraw the code. It would be
> best, though, if there were something for the registry to draw on rather
> than just doing this registration separately.
> >
> > However, sounds like ISO 639 is also concerned about stability and
> doesn't want to withdraw the code altogether. Moving it to ISO 639-5
> doesn't help, since those codes aren't deprecated in BCP 47. This might be
> a very special case? (The three cited by Philip Newton are historical and
> are documented in the body of BCP 47).
>
> I was under the impression that this was a preliminary discussion to
> gather additional feedback to help ISO 639 make an informed decision,
> rather than deciding independently what to do within the scope of BCP
> 47. At least, that was the framework under which I was asking my
> question. I imagine we'll be in a better position to decide what to do
> with the old and new codes once a decision is made in ISO 639.
>
> And, of course, I meant "precedent", not "precedence".
>
> --
> Gordon P. Hemsley
> me at gphemsley.org
> http://gphemsley.org/ • http://gphemsley.org/blog/
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20121210/2de121f4/attachment.html>