Third batch of ISO 639-3 modifications
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Aug 26 06:35:58 CEST 2013
CE Whitehead wrote:
> For change request #s 49 [nlq] and 50 [nqq] -- where did you get the
> date as "Feb 6, 2012"?-- The change request files at:
> and at:
> both say Feb 10, 2012.
I've set WatchThatPage to notify me whenever the downloadable ISO 639-3
data files files change, and have downloaded and archived ALL of the
revisions since the standard went live in February 2007.
The first ISO 639-3 "code set" data file I have that includes 'nlq' and
hence the comments. I cannot explain why the change request forms for
these code elements have a date later than this. Perhaps Melinda can
> Also why did you specify this information for these two only?, if I
> may ask a dumb question.
Because all of the other changes in batches 1 through 5 first appeared
in 639-3 data files during 2013, unless otherwise noted. I thought it
was worth explaining why these two had been in the 639-3 files for a
year and a half before appearing in the Registry. It's just a comment on
the respective registration forms, under the heading "Any other relevant
information." It is not normative in any way, and will not show up in
> Also, for change request # 113 [xjt], you have listed "Jaitmatang" as
> the language name, as specified in the change request,
> However, as you note, ISO 639-3 has recorded the name as "Jaimatang"
> -- has ISO 639-3 been made aware of this error? (If you don't reply I
> will assume that iso 639-3 has been informed.)
The data files say "Jaitmatang" and that makes it official. The spelling
"Jaimatang" appears only in the PDF, and seems to be a typo. I doubt the
RA would bother issuing a new PDF to correct this.
The spelling in the change request form actually isn't relevant. What is
relevant is the spelling that ISO 639-3/RA registers. (Notice the
spelling corrections in the sixth batch.)
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
More information about the Ietf-languages