Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
Apparently you've removed ME and RS, please re-insert these codes.
I'm supposed to wait until these additions (and the deprecation of CS) are reflected in the current Registry. As I pointed out in http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg06019.html, it was actually presumptuous and a mistake for me to have included these "pending" changes in draft-4645bis-00.
The changes have been sent off to IANA, but they aren't official until IANA posts a new Registry.
This is different from including the various "pending" changes in ISO/FDIS 639-3, such as the addition of "nqo" and "zza", the correction of the Frisian "fri"/"fy" problem, and the name change from "(generic)" and "(specific)" to "(macrolanguage)" and blank. Each of these has been mentioned by Peter Constable as a change that either has been made in the FDIS already, or will be made the next time ISO 639 RA/JAC meets. Since 639-3 is not released yet, its contents are unofficial and we can treat them in the drafts with some flexibility.
Is <http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-dis-639-3_20060421.tab> still up to date ? It's rather old, oddities like zza-diq and zza-kiu might be already obsolete (i.e. you'd remove the prose about it).
It is the version still available for download at http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/download.asp, which is why I'm still referencing it. If there is a newer version, it hasn't been made available to me.
Why did you keep frr near fy, but move frs ? You wanted to sort the language tags by length (of course that makes only sense for lengths 2, 3, and 4), with that order I'd expect frr near frs.
I didn't do that. IANA put "frr" between "fr" and "fy" as part of the 2006-03-08 update. They also put "anp" between "an" and "ar", but there were several other new language subtags in that update ("frr", "gsw", "krl", "zxx") and those were all placed in the logical location.
I've criticized that strange ordering many times as being counterintuitive, and most recently proposed to "fix" it in draft-4645bis, but it's been pointed out to me that RFC 4646 Section 5.1 does not require any particular order to the subtags in the Registry, except that all records of a given type must be together (and I don't even think that is necessary, if visual readability doesn't matter). So I don't worry about it any more.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ 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.