Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:24:17 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> One small comment: 639-3 won't make any codes available that would get 
> used as variant subtags. It will make available codes that we expect 
> will get used as extlang subtags.

Agreed.  We will probably want to use "extended language" in the charter 
instead of the jargony "extlang" with which we are comfortable.

> I'm guessing the number of additional codes that would get added is 
> around 6,800 (I think there was approx 7200 total in the draft code 
> table of which approx 400 are in 639-2).

The current Registry has 488 primary language subtags.

My preliminary mockup of an RFC 3066ter Registry includes 7,194 primary 
language subtags and 354 extlang subtags, for a total of 7,548, or an 
increase of 7,060 over the status quo.  Note that this does not include 
any of the ISO 639-3 code elements for sign languages, which will have 
to be their own topic of discussion, though this may not need to be 
stated in the brief charter text.

I also note that the words "tags" and "codes," mostly in the first 
paragraph, should be changed to "subtags" as appropriate.

Suggested rewording of the first two paragraphs::

-----
The primary language subtags allowed by the current IANA Language Subtag 
Registry are limited to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in the same way as they 
were limited by RFC 3066. This covers approximately 500 possible 
language subtags. ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 
2006, will make available around 7000 more primary language subtags and 
extended language subtags.

The working group will work on an update to the Language Subtag Registry 
procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from ISO 639-3 as primary 
language subtags or extended language subtags as appropriate. The 
working group will also deliver means to update the current IANA 
Language Subtag Registry with the newly available subtags.
-----

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

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:27:50 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> In addition to signed languages, I'd like to see us discussing 
> transliterations and transcriptions.

and John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> and Debbie Garside <debbie at 
ictmarketing dot co dot uk> promptly replied:

> +1

Transliterations and transcriptions would be represented with variant 
subtags, right?  A few days ago I suggested that we make the RFC more 
explicit about the intended purposes of variants, and that suggestion 
ended up getting flayed with a cat o' nine tails.  I'm glad Peter's more 
specific suggestion is receiving better support.

+1