Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO 639 language code addition rules...

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 18:19:51 -0600

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> If it's an addition to 639-1, then either it will already have been in 
> 639-2, or it is being added to both simultaneously, and it would get 
> announced together.

My only concern is that the words "simultaneously" and "together" might 
have a creative meaning when applied to two different RAs using their 
own public reporting mechanisms and philosophies.  Sometimes one RA 
makes a change that isn't reflected in the other 639 part for some time. 
See my comment earlier today about the new name for 'zxx' still not 
appearing in the new 639-3 files, published within the past two days, 
though it was added to 639-2 eight weeks ago.

Our goal on ietf-languages -- mine, at least -- is to be responsive in 
registering subtags to track ISO.  If one "simultaneous" announcement 
comes significantly before the other, do we run the risk of making the 
wrong change in the Registry?

> It if is a new addition to 639-3, then likely it is not something that 
> would make it into 639-1. In general, I expect new additions to 639-1 
> to be pretty rare.

That seems probable.  The last 2-letter code to be added was 'ht' in 
February 2003.

> I've suggested before that we could decide that we will never again 
> register something from 639-1. That would eliminate these concerns 
> entirely.

It might be better if ISO 639-1 instituted such a rule, instead of us.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, 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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 23:56:57 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell

> makes a change that isn't reflected in the other 639 part for some time.

Unfortunately true; but on the other hand, the JAC secretary usually sends out mail notifications when changes are made, and I believe this list and IETF-languages are among those audiences to whom those mails are sent.

> It might be better if ISO 639-1 instituted such a rule, instead of us.

Neither the JAC nor the 639-1/RA can institute a rule about practice for maintaining the LSTR. The JAC has a guideline not to add an alpha-2 in case an alpha-3 previously existed, though that is not a binding rule. The JAC has also informally agreed to adopt a very high bar for alpha-2 additions, making new alpha-2 additions less likely.

Peter

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 1 Jun 2008 03:02:15 -0400

Peter Constable scripsit:

> Neither the JAC nor the 639-1/RA can institute a rule about practice
> for maintaining the LSTR. The JAC has a guideline not to add an alpha-2
> in case an alpha-3 previously existed, though that is not a binding
> rule. The JAC has also informally agreed to adopt a very high bar for
> alpha-2 additions, making new alpha-2 additions less likely.

Given that, I think we should cease to add further alpha-2 codes.

-- 
John Cowan              [email-masked]          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Any day you get all five woodpeckers is a good day.  --Elliotte Rusty Harold
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru