Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and initialization documents

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 09:51:32 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of r&d afrac

> The problem with your Draft is that you do not include the 3 letters
> version of the 2 letter version as a correlative information between
> ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 tables. I do not think should be left to the
> Editor.

I think it is out of scope for this registry to document equivalences
between alternate standardized codes, whether that be equivalences
between the 639-1 alpha-2 code and the 639-2 alpha-3 code, the 3166-1
alpha-2 code and the 3166-1 alpha-3 code, or whatever.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 03:50:07 +0200

>alpha-2 code and the 3166-1 alpha-3 code, or whatever.

As indicated to Addison, this will give additional interest to my own 
document. Thank you.
However, I hope you will change your mind, as about ISO 11179.
If this was an incitation to create an alt-registry: I would submit 
an appropriate Draft.
jfc