Subject: [Ltru] Unrelated editorial issues in 14b

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 19:27:42 -0400

I think I brought some of these up before, but they appear to still
be there:

4.2 ends with a sentence fragment, at least in the HTML.  By its content,
it seems to belong to 4.3.

2.2.4 point 3.C is confusingly worded:  s/MUST be defined according
to the rules/ MUST be defined only in accordance with the rules/, or
something to that effect.

s/maintenance agency/registration authority/ with respect to ISO 639,
639-2, and 639-3 as well as ISO 19524.  References to the 3166-1
maintenance agency should be left alone.

-- 
John Cowan    [email-masked]    http://ccil.org/~cowan
If a traveler were informed that such a man [as Lord John Russell] was
leader of the House of Commons, he may well begin to comprehend how the
Egyptians worshiped an insect.  --Benjamin Disraeli
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Phillips, Addison" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 20:15:30 -0700

> it seems to belong to 4.3.

It's a bad edit. Eliminated.
> something to that effect.

Yes, this is an icky syntactical mess. I edited it to read:

--
<t>When ISO 3166-1 reassigns a code formerly used for one country or area to another country or area and that code already is present in the registry, the UN numeric code for that country or area MUST be registered in the registry as described in <xref target="ianastability"/> and MUST be used to form language tags that represent the country or region for which it is defined (rather than the recycled ISO 3166-1 code).</t>
--

> maintenance agency should be left alone.

Done.

Addison