Subject: Re: [Ltru] Results of Duplicate Busters Survey #1

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 18:40:57 -0600

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> My preference would be to remove Dimli and Kirmanjki as alternative
> descriptions for zza, if ISO 639-3 RA does so.

I would always choose to follow the ISO 639-3 solution, if one exists.
I'm delighted to see that they have been receptive to solving this
problem, which is not their own.

> Failing that, I support your suggestion, even if ISO 639-3 RA
> continues to ignore the issue.

For the record, I didn't say or believe that ISO 639-3/RA had ignored
the issue.  I assumed it was either an unintentional oversight or a
conscious decision not to use the same solution for macro/individual
that they had used for country A/country B.  Neither of these is quite
the same as ignoring.

Joan Spanne <ISO639 dash 3 at sil dot org> wrote:

> I think that the ISO 639/JAC erred in including so many names with the
> macrolanguage (done before I was a voting member). I cannot simply
> remove the names (as I also think would be better), because they are
> included in Part 2. So the offending name pairs will be disambiguated
> in Part 3.
>
> At the moment I am processing substantive change requests and trying
> to meet other deadlines with other work, so it may be a week before
> these changes are posted publicly either online or in download tables.

Good enough.  I'll wait 2 weeks for the new files before dropping a
reminder note.  Thanks for taking care of this.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, 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