Subject: [Ltru] Re: New ISO 639 language identifier approved: Swiss German; Alemanic

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 13:57:22 -0800

Håvard Hjulstad <HHj at standard dot no> wrote on ietf-languages:

> The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee (JAC)
> has approved the following:
>
> Alpha-3 identifier in ISO 639-2: gsw
>
> (No alpha-2 identifier has been assigned)
>
> English name: Swiss German; Alemanic
>
> French name: alémanique
>
> Indigenous name: Schwyzerdütsch

This implies that the following primary language subtag will need to be 
added to the initial registry:

Type: language
Subtag: gsw
Description: Swiss German
Description: Alemanic
Added: 2005-11-04

I am working with the co-chairs to determine the best way to add this to 
draft-ietf-ltru-initial-06.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Erik van der Poel <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 10:20:55 -0800

I'm wondering whether it might be better to delay the addition of "gsw" 
until after the 2 IDs currently at the IESG stage get published as RFCs. 
It just seems like "gsw" has a number of issues hanging off of it, and 
that any "rushed" addition might miss something or cause an error. I may 
be overreacting -- if so, please let me know, I'm new here.

Now for the issues themselves. There are already a couple of "redundant" 
tags for Swiss German: de-CH-1901 and de-CH-1996. However, if we add 
"gsw" and it becomes the preferred subtag for Swiss German, then those 
de-CH tags are no longer "redundant" in the normal sense of that word. 
Should we then add a Preferred-Value (or a See-Also) to those 
"redundant" entries? Rules 8 and 10 in Section 3.4 of the registry ID 
appear to talk specifically about language subtags, but I didn't 
immediately notice any discussion of language-COUNTRY combos like de-CH. 
I'm probably missing something -- let me know.

If it is true that Switzerland's orthography years were the same as 
Germany's (1901 and 1996), then should the entry for the "variant" with 
the subtag "1901" also have the prefix "gsw" (and likewise for 1996)?

If German has a Suppress-Script of Latn, shouldn't "gsw" also have that?

On the other hand, if this "gsw" case raises a number of issues in the 
IDs, we may want to delay them to fix them (for new rules that would 
cover this sort of case). Not that I want to be the person blamed for 
the delay of these RFCs!

Erik

---

From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 11:10:38 -0800

I second the sentiment: I see no harm in letting the "gsw" update wait 
until it can be registered using the procedures of the draft, instead of 
being in the initial registry.

I don't think we will forget.

(note - I think IANA's supposed to switch to the new procedures when the 
draft is approved + whatever time IANA needs to prepare - it shouldn't have 
to wait for the RFC to be published...)

                         Harald

--On 7. november 2005 10:20 -0800 Erik van der Poel <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

> that any "rushed" addition might miss something or cause an error.