CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Mon May 7 18:18:09 CEST 2012


Doug Ewell 
    doug at

    Sat May  5 01:46:22 CEST 2011
> Peter Constable wrote:

>> There are various distinct issues:
>> 1. providing enough description to make reasonably clear the intended
>>    denotation
>> 2. providing a preferred display name (in language X, or an
>>    autoglottonym) for the language
>> 3. providing a comprehensive set of names that might be the way a user
>>    might expect (e.g. terms that they might use to search for the
>>    language in a language picker UI)
>> 4. providing translations of terms in 2 or 3 in various languages
>> 5. providing an exhaustive listing of names known to ever be used for
>>    the language in linguistic documentation (for purposes of
>>    documentation, not for use in any ICT implementation)
>> Certain #1 is within the scope of the LSTR. It's not clear that any of
>> the others are in scope.

> I think it should be obvious that neither #4 nor #5 is being attempted 
> here, nor really #3 in the true sense of "comprehensive." Slovene is 
> certainly "a" preferred display name for this language, so maybe #2.
Agreed with Doug that this seems to be a "preferred display name."
> Clearly the ISO 639 folks (both -2 and -3) have provided, and the 
> Registry has carried over, many additional names that are sometimes just 
> alternative spellings (Kuanyama and Kwanyama), sometimes regionally 
> preferred names (Catalan and Valencian), and sometimes... well, I don’t 
> know what value is added (Limburgan, Limburger, Limburgish). Of course 
> these are ISO 639's responsibility and not strictly ours.
I myself am somewhat "lukewarm" (meaning not particularly excited) about our adding this description, since I'm not sure whether it's within scope either, but I feel safest deferring to the rest of the list as to what's in scope regarding the added description.
> I won't fight hard over this one if it's going to derail Tomaž's other 
> three proposals.
Yes I agree; the other three registrations should go through regardless, in my opinion also.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at
 > --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA
> | @DougEwell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list