Subject: Re: [Ltru] Principles of Operation

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 20:58:04 -0800

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> replied to John 
Cowan, who already answered these questions but did not cite chapter and 
verse:

>> If ISO 639 decides to merge two languages, we aren't going to follow; 
>> we'll just add the new merged code, and keep the two codes they 
>> retire.
>
> They surely must be kept (if they ever got in to begin with), but I do 
> hope that, by 639-3 RA, codes that become "retired" are 
> "automatically" deprecated in LSR. I'm not sure if any new text in 
> 4646bis is needed to say that more explicitly.

Draft-4646bis-11, section 3.4, item 13 covers this.  I have to admit 
John's response surprised me at first reading: saying we "keep" them 
didn't shout "deprecation" to me.

> If a 639-3 code is "retired" already before 4645bis is submitted in 
> final form, it should not be part of 4645bis. I understand that 
> current drafts are constructed without already retired "new" codes.

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.

I hope the default action for all LTRU participants, when questions like 
this come up, will be to check the drafts first.  All basic questions of 
this sort should be in one draft or the other, and if they are not, we 
need to add them.  If we're not reading through the drafts pretty 
thoroughly by now, we aren't even going to make the co-chairs' new, 
improved milestone of March for IETF Last Call (which BTW is still not 
posted on the charter page).

--
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