Subject: [Ltru] Re: Draft-4645bis-01 posted to Web site

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 8 Oct 2006 22:18:19 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> Apparently you've removed ME and RS, please re-insert these codes.

I'm supposed to wait until these additions (and the deprecation of CS) 
are reflected in the current Registry.  As I pointed out in 
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg06019.html, it was 
actually presumptuous and a mistake for me to have included these 
"pending" changes in draft-4645bis-00.

The changes have been sent off to IANA, but they aren't official until 
IANA posts a new Registry.

This is different from including the various "pending" changes in 
ISO/FDIS 639-3, such as the addition of "nqo" and "zza", the correction 
of the Frisian "fri"/"fy" problem, and the name change from "(generic)" 
and "(specific)" to "(macrolanguage)" and blank.  Each of these has been 
mentioned by Peter Constable as a change that either has been made in 
the FDIS already, or will be made the next time ISO 639 RA/JAC meets. 
Since 639-3 is not released yet, its contents are unofficial and we can 
treat them in the drafts with some flexibility.

> Is <http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-dis-639-3_20060421.tab> still up 
> to date ?  It's rather old, oddities like zza-diq and zza-kiu might be 
> already obsolete (i.e. you'd remove the prose about it).

It is the version still available for download at 
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/download.asp, which is why I'm still 
referencing it.  If there is a newer version, it hasn't been made 
available to me.

> Why did you keep frr near fy, but move frs ?  You wanted to sort the 
> language tags by length (of course that makes only sense for lengths 
> 2, 3, and 4), with that order I'd expect frr near frs.

I didn't do that.  IANA put "frr" between "fr" and "fy" as part of the 
2006-03-08 update.  They also put "anp" between "an" and "ar", but there 
were several other new language subtags in that update ("frr", "gsw", 
"krl", "zxx") and those were all placed in the logical location.

I've criticized that strange ordering many times as being 
counterintuitive, and most recently proposed to "fix" it in 
draft-4645bis, but it's been pointed out to me that RFC 4646 Section 5.1 
does not require any particular order to the subtags in the Registry, 
except that all records of a given type must be together (and I don't 
even think that is necessary, if visual readability doesn't matter).  So 
I don't worry about it any more.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 08:56:54 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

 [ME + RS] 
> The changes have been sent off to IANA, but they aren't official
> until IANA posts a new Registry.

Okay.
 
> IANA put "frr" between "fr" and "fy" as part of the 2006-03-08
> update.

Odd, why did they use another logic for frs ?  They can pick any
style they like, alphabetically, chronologically, "input order"
(= 4645 style), or something else, but using different styles for
subtags frr and frs submitted simultaneously is surprising.

> RFC 4646 Section 5.1 does not require any particular order to
> the subtags in the Registry, except that all records of a given
> type must be together

Yes, but didn't you want to use the same "input order" as for 
4645 again, length before alphabetical ?  Keeping the old subtags
in whatever order you found is also okay, and changing it would
screw up "diffs".  But IMO you're also free to sort the subtags
per section, because it's a replacement registry, not an update.

If you don't want that anymore it's fine, I was just curious why
frr and frs ended up in different parts.

Frank