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

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 06:24:02 -0700

The ISO 639-5 data has finally, at long last, been made publicly 
available on the Web:

http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-5/

I propose modifying the text and references in draft-4645bis to refer to 
this Web site and files taken from it, much the same way that it 
references the ISO 639-2 and 639-3 sites, instead of referring to PDF 
files and private agreements about how to handle "Galibi Carib."  Please 
enter this into the issue tracker.  These changes would not take long.

--
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: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 07:43:50 -0800

I agree.

Mark

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 05:24, Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote:

> The ISO 639-5 data has finally, at long last, been made publicly available
> on the Web:
>
> this Web site and files taken from it, much the same way that it references
> the ISO 639-2 and 639-3 sites, instead of referring to PDF files and private
> agreements about how to handle "Galibi Carib."  Please enter this into the
> issue tracker.  These changes would not take long.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 10:16:39 -0800

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 5:24 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] Add ISO 639-5 Web references to draft-4645bis
>
...

Added as issue #24.

Randy

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 21:27:33 +0100

I agree, but I also note that there are some changes noted in
http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-5/changes.php. Many of them refer only
to the French name(s), which aren't picked up for LSR, but there are a few
others that should be picked up. I see at least one, namely the English name
change for ngf. Maybe there are other differences not noted on the changes
page. Especially since our current 639-5 data was picked up from an
internal(?) draft document.

    /kent k

> The ISO 639-5 data has finally, at long last, been made publicly 
available on
> the Web:

I propose modifying the text
> and references in draft-4645bis to refer to 
this Web site and files taken
> from it, much the same way that it 
references the ISO 639-2 and 639-3 sites,
> instead of referring to PDF 
files and private agreements about how to handle
> "Galibi Carib."  Please 
enter this into the issue tracker.  These changes
> would not take long.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645
> *  UTN 
> #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.htm
> l
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> –

Ltru mailing
> list
[email-masked]

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:37:37 -0700

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-5/changes.php. Many of them refer 
> only to the French name(s), which aren't picked up for LSR, but there 
> are a few others that should be picked up. I see at least one, namely 
> the English name change for ngf.

Kent raises an excellent point.  Fortunately, your editor is on top of 
it.  The changes from the original PDF chart are as follows:

1. 'car' for "Carib languages" has been deleted.  This is consistent 
with the discussion I had with Rebecca Guenther and Joan Spanne, 
captured in the next-to-last paragraph of Section 2.3 in draft-4645bis. 
(Now that the decision is reflected in the standard, it'll be nice to 
get rid of that shady-sounding passage.)

2. 'day' for "Land Dayak languages" has been added.  Since it was 
already in 639-2, it's already in draft-4645bis and marked as a 
collection.  There are still two other collections, Bihari and 
Himachali, which are not in 639-5.

3. As Kent observed, 'ngf' has been renamed from "Trans New Guinea" to 
"Trans-New Guinea languages".  This needs to be fixed in 
draft-4645bis-10.

As a side note, in case anyone else spots this with a diff program, the 
ISO 639-5 file spells the names "Creoles and pidgins, English-based" and 
"Creoles and pidgins, French-based" with U+2011 NON-BREAKING HYPHEN. 
They didn't do this for "Creoles and pidgins, Portuguese-based", nor for 
any other name that involves a hyphen.  As co-designated expert for RFC 
4646 and the Language Subtag Reviewer's clerical assistant, I intend to 
convert these to ASCII hyphens in draft-4645bis, as described in 
draft-4646bis, Section 3.1.5, paragraph 9.  (If anyone objects that I'm 
not the Reviewer, I can always ask him.)

> Maybe there are other differences not noted on the changes page.

I think I've got them all, but additional reviewing eyes are always 
welcome.

> Especially since our current 639-5 data was picked up from an 

It was actually taken from an official PDF copy of the final approved 
standard, obtained through less-than-official channels.

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:37:15 -0800

Hi -

I've entered this as issue #25.

Randy

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 12:27 PM
Subject: [Ltru] Data update from ISO 639-5 to draft-4645bis

    /kent k

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:30:39 +0100

> 2. 'day' for "Land Dayak languages" has been added.  Since it was

Side remark: I have seen translations of this one as just "Dayak".
But the Land Dayak languages appears to be a subset of the Dayak
languages. At least according to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dayak_languages,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bidayuh.
(In addition there is the retired code dyk for Land Dayak [languages]...)

> Himachali, which are not in 639-5.

I think this holds also for "chs", Chumash, which I gather is the code
that is referred to in "1 retirement of a code element representing a
language family whose constituents were already present in [the] code set.
This code element will be recommended for inclusion in ISO 639-5". See
http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/639-3_ChangeRequests_2008_Sum&add.pdf.
(But at the moment chs is not covered by any part of 639, except as
"retired"...)

    /kent k

> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  –
> 
>

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:04:46 -0800

Hi -

> Cc: "Michael Everson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>; "Rebecca S.
Guenther" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Friday, February 20, 2009 6:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Data update from ISO 639-5 to draft-4645bis
...
> get rid of that shady-sounding passage.)

This has been added as issue #26.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:07:35 -0800

Hi -

Guenther" <[email-masked]>
...
...

I've added this as issue 27.

As a technical contribtor:
I really think this is a total non-issue, and am surprised that it was even
raised at this time.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:09:36 -0800

Hi -

Guenther" <[email-masked]>
...
...

I've added this as issue #28.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:13:47 -0800

Hi -

Reminder: PLEASE use a new (and appropriate) subject
line when rasing new issues, and stick to one issue per
message.  PLEASE!

> Cc: "Michael Everson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:30 AM
...
> "retired"...

It's not at all clear to me what the proposal is here, but I've entered this
as issue #29.

Randy

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:42:39 +0100

This is not an issue. 'car' was deleted from 639-5, but not from 639-2 nor
639-3, and is present as it should be in 4645bis draft 9.

Den 2009-02-21 19.04, skrev "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>:

>> Cc: "Michael Everson" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>; "Kent
>> Karlsson" <[email-masked]>; "Rebecca S.
> Guenther" <[email-masked]>

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:45:26 +0100

This is not an issue. "day" is already present in 4645bis draft 9 as a
collection.
   
    /kent k

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:48:53 -0700

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> Side remark: I have seen translations of this one as just "Dayak". But 
> the Land Dayak languages appears to be a subset of the Dayak 

At this point, as editor of the draft, I'm primarily interested in how 
the various ISO 639-* parts categorize and name the languages or groups 
and what the code elements are.  If there are "better" categories or 
"better" names, I don't really want to know about them right now. :-)

'dyk' just looks to me like a duplicate that was recognized and retired.

> language family whose constituents were already present in [the] code 
> set. This code element will be recommended for inclusion in ISO 
> 639-5". See 

Same as above.  I would guess that 'chs' will appear in 639-5 sometime 
in the future, and so I would recommend against ietf-languages trying to 
register a variant for it.  But there is no work for LTRU to do here.

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:49:47 +0100

This is not an issue, just a note that chs has beed retired from 639-3,
but has not yet appeared in 639-5 (which I gather was the intention), along
with two other collection codes (in 639-2) that have not yet appeared in
639-5 (as Doug noted). The two latter are already noted as "collection" in
4645bis draft 9.

    /kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:53:08 -0800

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue 26: deletion of 'car'
>

Doug was proposing changes to the  next-to-last paragraph of
Section 2.3 in draft-4645bis.  That makes it an issue.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:58:01 -0800

Hi -

> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 10:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #29: handling 'chs'
>
...

What are you proposing that we DO about this situation?
Does it require any change to any document we're working on here?

I'm assuming that there was a reason for posting this to the
list while we're trying (yes, we're really trying!) to wrap
up the last call on this document.

Randy

---

From: Kent Karlsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 20:09:22 +0100

> up the last call on this document.

I did not realise that every sentence had to be an issue, or would be
interpreted as an issue for LTRU. My apologies.

    /kent k

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2009 11:17:05 -0800

Hi -

> To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>; "LTRU Working > Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 11:09 AM
...
...

I apologize for the harshness of my response.
My frustration must be showing.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:18:31 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair...

With no further discussion or objections, we'll accept
the proposed resolution for this item.
I've closed the issue in the tracker.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:25:15 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair...

Since there are no objections, we'll go with the editor's proposed
resolution to this issue.

Randy

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:27:07 -0800

Hi -

As co-chair...

Based on the discussion, the resolution for this item is
"no action needed."  I've closed the issue in the tracker.

Randy