Subject: [Ltru] Re: Notes before draft-4645bis-02

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:01:27 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> I think that extlang subtags and the Macrolanguage: header serve 
> separate purposes...

The draft I just submitted supports both, and I fixed my program that 
converts the ISO 639-3 files to subtags so it will handle all three 
models: extlang only (as in previous drafts), Macrolanguage field only, 
or both (as in this draft), so future drafts can follow whichever model 
the group prefers.

> Let's blow off the 639-2 names; they are much less well checked and 
> maintained, and the field is only informative anyhow.

I thought we actively decided to change "N'Ko" (the language) to use the 
U+2019 curly apostrophe, to match the script name which came from ISO 
15924.  "Gwich´in" is a known abomination which was fixed within 639-2. 
"Macedo Romanian" is probably just a matter of inconsistent style.

But the three latter examples all come from 15924, whose Registration 
Authority can probably be assumed to know about character choices. :-) 
I don't mind Hangul and Hangŭl, and Hanunoo and Hanunóo so much -- at 
least they're visually distinguishable -- but I really don't like Geʻez 
and Ge'ez.  If it were up to me I'd pick one of those two and discard 
the other.

Anyway, the draft has been submitted to the RFC Editor with both fields, 
and with all names, so I hope the group provides thoughtful and timely 
feedback on what it really wants so we can finish this project.

--
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