> From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of r&d afrac > ISO 639-4 is the ISO document which commits on the consistency of ISO 639 > series, 15924 and 3166 series. ISO 639-4 does not attempt to ensure consistency in ISO 15924 or ISO 3166. > 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. ISO 639-4 will describe in general terms that the ISO 639 codes can be combined with other codes defined in other standards. It will not define any specific constraints (e.g. that Latf cannot be used in combination with zh), nor will it impose any particular syntactic mechanisms for combining different codes. Nothing being done in the draft for 3066bis is contrary to what is anticipated in ISO 639-4. > This is why we must do the things in > sequence. Our charter is to deal with ISO 639. No, our charter is to revise RFC 3066. I don't see "deal with ISO 639" anywhere in the charter. > The author of ISO 639-3 > being at the origin of all this effort, All what effort? AFAIK, the editor for 639-3 cannot claim to be the origin for LTRU, work on 3066bis, 639-4, or even 639-3. > I undersnand that he insisted on > ISO 639-3. I have not insisted on anything to do with ISO 639-3 in the context of LTRU. Suggestions for future developments, particularly in relation to incorporation of 639-3 and in relation to extlang, have been made, and there has been some broad consensus on general issues. But nothing has transpired on the basis of my insistence. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ 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.