ISO 639-3 changes

[Doug Ewell]

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126 dot com> wrote:

> It would be useful to include a comments field in the 'zgh' record
> spelling out the situation.

I agree with you and John on this.

> Do you think the communications you've established with the RA will
> avoid this occurring again? Is there any way to verify if other
> subtags are lurking "in the dark" like this?

I should have liked to think it would have helped this time. Based on
the account of what happened, which I don't know if I'm at liberty to
explain further, the outlook isn't brilliant.

> Operating on the theory for the moment that the omission of 'zg' was
> a mistake, one supposes that 'zgh' could be deprecated (it cannot be
> removed). But I tend to think it would be better to follow the course
> you suggest.

I think that is far from the intent of Section 2.2.1, which sought to
avoid this type of churn in the event an alpha-2 was assigned after the
fact, and assumed, perhaps with excessive faith, that the 2003 "oops, we
forgot" scenario could not possibly be repeated.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA | http://ewellic.org