The draft does not include any of the overlapping codes on purpose. This is conformant with both RFC 3066 Section 2.2 and draft-registry Section 2.2.1, which both mandate that, where ISO 639-1 (alpha2) and ISO 639-2 (alpha3) codes exist, only the ISO 639-1 codes be used. The registry contains only subtags that are valid in language tags. I know I'm going to regret asking, but why would the IESG need approval from Michael Everson to tell IANA to publish a registry? They appoint him, after all. Addison Addison P. Phillips Globalization Architect, Quest Software Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > r&d afrac > Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 9:32 AM > To: Doug Ewell; John C Klensin; Sam Hartman > Cc: ltru at ietf.org; iesg at ietf.org > Subject: [Ltru] Re: Last call comments on LTRU registry and initialization > documents > > The problem with your Draft is that you do not include the 3 letters > version of the 2 letter version as a correlative information between > ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 tables. I do not think should be left to the > Editor. Otherwise your Draft seems no problem. But I suppose that > IESG would need a formal OK from Michael Everson since he is charge > of ietf-languages at alvestrand.no. > jfc > > At 17:07 09/09/2005, Doug Ewell wrote: > >John C Klensin <john dash ietf at jck dot com> wrote: > > > > > The success or failure of the "foo" registry is > > > not evaluated on how many foos we can put in to it, or its > > > comprehensiveness relative to some external foo-list, but on > > > whether it does the job that the foo-protocol (and maybe foo1, > > > foo2, etc.), requires. Normally, we don't even write a "create > > > the baz registry" document. Instead, we write a "baz protocol > > > specification" document and include a more or less long section > > > that instructs IANA to create the registry, what to put in it, > > > and how. > > > >So, do you propose that we withdraw the specification of the initial > >registry contents, all 963 tags and subtags, and replace it with a set > >of instructions to IAN on how they can duplicate our work? And cross > >our fingers that they get it right, or prepare to go through > >item-languages for any correctible errors or omissions they may > >introduce, and live with the uncorrectable errors? Just wondering. > > > >-- > >Doug Ewell > >Fullerton, California > >http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Ietf mailing list > >Ietf at ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru at ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.