Fourth batch of ISO 639-3 modifications
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Sat Aug 31 22:14:51 CEST 2013
Hi once more.
> From: doug at ewellic.org
> To: cewcathar at hotmail.com; ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: RE: Fourth batch of ISO 639-3 modifications
> Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 15:08:13 -0700
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> > Doug, one more question: why is "Dhangu" retained as an additional
> > name for code element 'dhg'??
> > There is nothing in the ISO change file to say it should be retained
> > (see Change Request # 2012-047 in the .pdf file
> > http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/639-3_ChangeRequests_2012_Sum&Add.pdf),
> > nor in the original change request:
> > http://www-01.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/2012-047.pdf
> That's correct. This is because, again, the data files are the normative
> source for ISO 639-3 data, not the change request forms (which may
> contain requests that are not accepted by the RA), and not the Summary
> of Outcomes PDF document (which may contain errors or omissions).
> The file iso-639-3.tab (formerly called iso-639-3_20130531.tab)
> dhg I L Djangu
> which means "Djangu" is the reference name (for an Individual Living
> language). And the file iso-639-3_Name_Index.tab (formerly called
> iso-639-3_Name_Index_20130520.tab) contains:
> dhg Dhangu Dhangu
> dhg Djangu Djangu
> which means "Dhangu" is an alternate name.
Thanks. Sometime when my computer is not hanging up so much (or when I have a new one with more memory) I will look at these.
Sorry I could not be of more help.
> I am beginning to think it was a mistake to include a link to the
> original change request in each registration form, since it seems to be
> giving the impression that the change requests are authoritative in some
> way. They are input to the RA's process, but not to ours. They are
> interesting as background material on the language(s) involved. Next
> year I will try to make the roles of the various documents more clear.
I think the change request link is helpful, though it can cause confusion. And I think that you've made the role of the various documents clear on the list by this point (perhaps someday an update to RFC 5646 section 3.5 or perhaps a note a langtag.net "How to Register a New Subtag" might be in order; but I think I am the only one on the list who has expressed confusion).
> > (Sorry to ask another such question; since I am still unsure where the
> > data files are, maybe they differ again from the .pdf)
> > (I still may look over the fourth, fifth, and sixth batches of subtag
> > modifications a bit more but have been through most everything now;
> > which is a good feeling, as just reading through these is tedious. )
> Imagine preparing them.
That must have taken some time.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
> http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages