Subject: RE: FW: [Ltru] Re: STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for IdentifyingLanguages' toBCP)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 02:35:07 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of
> Debbie Garside

> > At the very least, you should not say "standard", but instead say
> > "proposed standard". It is *not* an ISO standard, not even a CD.

> I think it has been made perfectly clear where we are with it!

Indeed. "Proposed standard" is not entirely incorrect to the extent that
the intent (similar meaning to "proposal") is to create a standard. At
the same time, it would also be fair to say it doesn't reflect the
current status. 

Technically, the ISO 639-6 project is beyond the proposal stage and can
be considered an approved work item (AWI); the current stage is referred
to as the preparatory stage, at which stage document are referred to as
working drafts. It will remain such until it is registered with the ISO
secretariat as a committee draft (CD) and distributed throughout SC2 for
comments.

So, one might refer to ISO AWI 639-6, or perhaps to ISO/WD 639-6. One
should not refer to ISO 639-6 as a standard, though. Similarly, one
should not yet refer to ISO 639-3 as a standard: it is a draft
international standard (soon to be registered as final draft IS).

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 21:19:26 +0200

--On 30. august 2005 02:35 -0700 Peter Constable <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> the intent (similar meaning to "proposal") is to create a standard.

Since "Proposed Standard" is a "reserved word" that means something 
completley different in the IETF context, it seems better to use "ISO 
Approved Work Item" when discussing 639-6 in an IETF context.......

                     Harald