At 16:33 08/07/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote: >> The initial-registry draft refers the reader to the registry- >> structure draft for all details concerning the format and encoding >> conventions of the registry. The registry-structure draft, in turn, >> does contain an informative reference to Unicode 4.1.0. > > This cannot be as this is not an ISO 639-4 accepted reference. Nothing > protects the IETF which is not an ISO nor a Unicode expert, from > conflict. As the Chair put it, ISO is ISO and IETF is IETF. I have no idea what this means. Are you saying that the initial-registry draft needs to include an explicit reference to the Unicode Standard, instead of indirectly referencing it through the registry-structure draft?
No. I say directly or indirectly you cannot reference an third party. Unicode is a consortium of private interets, the same as W3C, etc. This WG is to deal with ISO 639, 3166 and 15924, plus UN M.49 (in a way I partly disagree with because the format is confusing). Outside of that no other code has been accepted: because no other maintainer has committed to stay compatible with these codes and her commitment accepted by the IETF.
I don't see what ISO 639-4 has to do with any of this.
ISO 639-4 is the ISO document which commits on the consistency of ISO 639 series, 15924 and 3166 series. ISO 639-4 is to describe the possible relations between these codes. The matter is debated and not made. It would be odd if IETF standardised relations between codes the authors of that codes would identify as wrong. This is why we must do the things in sequence. Our charter is to deal with ISO 639. The author of ISO 639-3 being at the origin of all this effort, I undersnand that he insisted on ISO 639-3. I find other ISO 639-3 based formats more interesting networkwise, but all this is a question of technical experimentation and testing by users. I always marvel at people who invent best common practices.
jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.