Subject: [Ltru] Re: Disambiguating specific and generic names

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:29:31 -0700

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

> I still hope that 639-3 will not use "(specific)"/"(macrolanguage)" or 
> similar parentheticals, but rather along the line of adding "Standard" 
> (or similar) where necessary to bring clarity to the names.

Please propose that to the 639-3 folks, then.

Here on LTRU, as I said before, we need to make a decision: follow the 
"official" names exactly or not.  Until that is settled, we are just 
spinning our wheels arguing about individual cases.

> B.t.w, I find it strange that    zne Zande     (Standard Zande?) is 
> regarded as a "(specific)" language,  while       znd Zande      is 
> regarded as a "collective" language code, not a macrolanguage code.

So do I, but that is what's in the currently available draft tables for 
639-3.  If and when newer tables become available before the release of 
4645bis, resolving some of these "strange" situations, they will replace 
the ones I'm using now.

--
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: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:40:07 -0700

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

>> I will wait until one of the co-chairs has declared a rough consensus 
>> on this issue before releasing draft-4645bis-01.
>
> Randy and Martin can't make up such decisions, they need to see some 
> discussions on the list first, and ideally proposed text (or 
> alternative proposals like Mark's A vs. B).

I didn't ask them to make anything up.  They need to decide and declare 
what "the group" wants, the rough consensus, based on however many 
contributions they get.  If there aren't enough contributions to make a 
determination, for some value of "enough," they need to decide whether 
to fall back to "do it," "don't do it," or "cajole more responses out of 
the group."

It's not helping for us to take the informal approach and assume 
everyone knows what course of action we are following.  There are 
obviously some very strong differences of opinion on this 
exact-description issue.