Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:36:57 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> If we really wanted to nitpick on terminology... ISO 639-3 will add 
>> *one* language code. That language code will include language 
>> identifiers for around 7000 additional languages. (That's the correct 
>> ISO-speak.)
>
> But not correct RFC-speak, in which "code" is used to mean the two- 
> and three-letter items when being treated independently.
>
> We probably should add to the charter an opportunity to reconcile our 
> terminology for talking about ISO standards with the terminology used 
> by the standard itself.

Actually, the correct ISO terminology seems to be "code" for the entire 
system of short identifiers, each of which is a "code element" 
(corresponding to French "code" and "codet" respectively).  We could do 
a lot worse than to follow that.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ 

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:21:33 -0400

> a lot worse than to follow that.

I'm for that.

-- 
John Cowan    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan   <[email-masked]>
    "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context.  A telegram
    that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in
    5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document
    as any, even sans digital signature." --me