ISO 639-3 change request no. 2012-096
doug at ewellic.org
Fri Jan 18 16:55:32 CET 2013
"ISO639-3" <iso639 dash 3 at sil dot org> wrote:
> I have checked with Doug Ewell and he feels BCP 47 should not have a
> problem with this.
Specifically, we are back to RFC 5646, Section 3.4, item 2:
"Values in the fields 'Preferred-Value' and 'Deprecated' MAY be added,
altered, or removed via the registration process. These changes SHOULD
be limited to changes necessary to mirror changes in one of the
underlying standards (ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166-1, or UN M.49)..."
That is what is happening here.
"... and typically alteration or removal of a 'Preferred-Value' is
limited specifically to region codes."
Typically, yes, because we expected error corrections of the type
Melinda described to be rare. And guess what: they are rare.
Piru has 10 speakers; Luhu has 6500 (Ethnologue). It seems plausible
from a BCP 47 perspective that deprecating Piru with a Preferred-Value
of Luhu, not the other way around, is what was meant and what users of
the BCP should expect.
When ISO 639-3/RA releases their 2012 change set, and we create
registration forms to reflect the changes, they will include these two
[Deprecated and Preferred-Value removed]
Deprecated: 2013-xx-xx [added]
Preferred-Value: lcq [added]
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
More information about the Ietf-languages