Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO 639 language code addition rules...

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:40:35 -0600

Martin Duerst <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:

> I agree about the probability of further registrations in 639-1. But
> my guess is that if anybody manages to get a 'new' language registered
> is 639-1, they will have a big interest to be able to use this
> two-letter code on the Internet.
>
> Actually, I think the main reason for new 639-1 registrations will not
> be discoveries of new languages with big populations of speakers, but
> politically motivated splits and changes such as the Kroatian/Serbian
> case. I don't think it is possible to call such cases absurd. Even if
> we don't see such a case on the horizon, things can change quite
> quickly when they change. So I don't want to rule out further 639-1
> registrations.

I'd better go get the door.  Someone is banging on it and shouting,
"Montenegrin!  Montenegrin!"

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:37:26 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell

> "Montenegrin!  Montenegrin!"

So far, nobody has submitted a formal request to the JAC for this. If they did, and assuming the JAC agreed that this is actually different from srp (note that drafts of the constitution had wording suggesting that these are one language), the default position of the JAC would be not to add an alpha-2 ID.

Of course, I can't guarantee 100% that an alpha-2 would not be added -- that can't be guaranteed until the text of ISO 639-1 is changed to say that no more code elements will be added.

Peter