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

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 11:57:35 -0600

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>>> I've suggested before that we could decide that we will never again 
>>> register something from 639-1. That would eliminate these concerns 
>>> entirely.
>>
>> It might be better if ISO 639-1 instituted such a rule, instead of 
>> us.
>
> Neither the JAC nor the 639-1/RA can institute a rule about practice 
> for maintaining the LSTR.

No, of course they can't.  I phrased that badly.  What I meant to say...

> The JAC has a guideline not to add an alpha-2 in case an alpha-3 
> previously existed, though that is not a binding rule. The JAC has 
> also informally agreed to adopt a very high bar for alpha-2 additions, 
> making new alpha-2 additions less likely.

... was that it might be better if ISO 639-* changed that to a binding 
rule: no more alpha-2's, period.

Of course my goal here, again, is to avoid cherry-picking ISO 639-1 in 
the unlikely event they break their guideline.

--
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: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 19:00:03 -0700

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

> rule: no more alpha-2's, period.

Well, since the JAC can't control what TCs 37 and 46 might choose to do, the JAC can't make any binding guarantee. The best we can do is set a very high bar, and so far that's sticking.

Peter