Subject: Re: [Ltru] Results of Duplicate Busters Survey #2

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 18:04:06 -0600

Forwarded from ietf-languages.  The survey was presented to both lists.

> From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
> Subject: Re: Results of Duplicate Busters Survey #2
> To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <[email-masked]>
> Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On 7 Sep 2008, at 01:18, Peter Constable wrote:
>>> Frank Ellerman wrote:
>>> IMO decreeing that RFC 4646 and older tags are obsoleted
>>> by whatever ISO 639-3 says is no option.  There will be
>>> applications limiting themselves to RFC 4646 languages,
>>> all ISO 639-1/2 warts included.  Interpreting such tags
>>> as defined in ISO 639-3 can result in unclear gibberish.
>>
>> Alpha-3 language IDs that are in ISO 639-2 and the alpha-3
>> counterparts to alpha-2 IDs in ISO 639-1 represent the same
>> semantics in ISO 639-3 as the items in ISO 639-1/-2.
>
> I've heard enough, thank you all. My ruling (because Doug asked me to
> rule on this) is that the ISO 639-3 field should be sufficient. We do
> not need to repeat ISO 639-2 fields and we do not need to repeat ISO
> 639-1 fields. 639-3 is a proper superset, and is more accurate than
> the others.
>
> If anyone wants to make this all tidier, they should talk to the 639
> Registration Authorities and ask them to harmonize their fields. It is
> not our job to do that here.
>
> Doug, make it so.
>
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, 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]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru