Subject: [Ltru] Proposed wording for 639-3 items already retired

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:56:54 -0800

I wrote:

> Draft-4645bis-03, section 2.1 covers this: the retired code elements 
> are not considered to be "in" 639-3.  I probably need to make that 
> clearer.

Proposed wording for Section 2.1 of draft-4645bis, immediately following 
the three bullet points:

"Language code elements that were already retired in [ISO639-3] prior to 
IESG approval of this memo were not listed in these files, and 
consequently were not considered in this update."

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, 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]
http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 11:48:43 -0800

+1

-- 
Mark