Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #24: Add ISO 639-5 Web references to draft-4645bis

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 11:33:15 -0700

Proposed changes to address this issue:

Section 2.1:

OLD:

The source data for [ISO639-5] used for this update was Table 3,
"Language families and groups ordered by identifier", from the PDF
version of the standard.

NEW:

The source data for [ISO639-5] used for this update consisted of one
file, available from the official site of the ISO 639-5 Registration
Authority.  [RFC EDITOR NOTE: this file may be updated before approval
of this memo.]

o  [iso639-5.tab.txt] is a list of all language code elements in
   [ISO639-5], including the alpha-3 code elements and English name for
   each code element.  For example, this file includes an entry
   containing the code element 'ira' and the name "Iranian languages"
   (among other information).

Section 2.1 again:

OLD:

Language code elements that were already retired in [ISO639-3] prior to
IESG approval of this memo were not listed in these files, and
consequently were not considered in this update.

NEW:

Language code elements that were already retired in all of the source
standards prior to IESG approval of this memo were not listed in these
files, and consequently were not considered in this update.

Section 2.2:

OLD:

For each language in [ISO639-5] that was not already represented by a
language subtag in the Language Subtag Registry, a new language subtag
was added to the Registry, using the [ISO639-5] code element as the
value for the Subtag field and the "English name" field as the
Description field.  Each of these languages was assigned a Scope value
of "collection" in the Registry.

NEW:

For each language in [iso639-5.tab.txt] that was not already represented
by a language subtag in the Language Subtag Registry, a new language
subtag was added to the Registry, using the [ISO639-5] code element as
the value for the Subtag field and the "English name" field as the
Description field.  Each of these languages was assigned a Scope value
of "collection" in the Registry.

Section 2.3:

OLD:

For each language in [ISO639-5] that was already represented in the
Language Subtag Registry, the Description field was adjusted as
necessary to match the "English name" field in [ISO639-5].  Names in
inverted form were rearranged to remove the inversion.  Each of these
languages was assigned a Scope value of "collection".  Existing language
subtags whose code elements were assigned prior to the publication of
[ISO639-3] or [ISO639-5] and which were identified by the [ISO639-3]
Registration Authority as representing collections were also assigned a
Scope value of "collection", even though they are not listed as such in
[ISO639-5].

NEW:

For each language in [iso639-5.tab.txt] that was already represented in
the Language Subtag Registry, the Description field was adjusted as
necessary to match the "English name" field in [iso639-5.tab.txt].
Names in inverted form were rearranged to remove the inversion.  Each of
these languages was assigned a Scope value of "collection".  Existing
language subtags whose code elements were assigned prior to the
publication of [ISO639-3] or [ISO639-5] and which were identified by the
[ISO639-3] Registration Authority as representing collections were also
assigned a Scope value of "collection", even though they are not listed
as such in [iso639-5.tab.txt].

Section 2.3 again:

OLD:

Note in particular that the change from [ISO639-2] names such as "Afro-
Asiatic (Other)" to [ISO639-5] names such as "Afro-Asiatic languages"
implies a broadening of scope for some of these subtags, designated
"remainder groups" in [ISO639-5].

NEW:

Note in particular that the change from [ISO639-2] names such as "Afro-
Asiatic (Other)" to [ISO639-5] names such as "Afro-Asiatic languages"
implies a broadening of scope for some of these subtags, designated
"remainder groups" in [ISO639-5].  While [iso639-5.tab.txt] includes a
field indicating which code elements are designated as "groups" or
"remainder groups" in [ISO639-2], [draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-20] does not
make this distinction, and consequently this field was not used in
updating the Language Subtag Registry.

Section 7.1:

NEW:

[iso639-5.tab.txt]
           International Organization for Standardization, ISO 639-5
           code list, Tab-delimited text, February 2009,
           <http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-5/iso639-5.tab.txt>.

--
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

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 22:35:52 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 10:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #24: Add ISO 639-5 Web references to draft-4645bis
>

Thank you for working through all these details!
 
> Authority.  [RFC EDITOR NOTE: this file may be updated before approval

As co-chair...
>From a process point of view, I think we really need to pick a particular
version (even just by saying that we used whatever was available on date FOO)
so that IESG review, IETF last call, and the publication process are not
on a moving target.

If the ISO file changes during that period, someone can choose to request
that those changes be incorporated as an IETF last call comment.

As a technical contributor:
Other than agreeing with the co-chair about the desirability of picking
a date in the interest of stability during the IETF last call process,
I have no problem with any of the editor's proposed changes for this issue.

Randy
Randy