Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
> IMO, there's no particular reason for members of this WG to be second
> guessing whether the content of ISO 639-3 is good enough for use in
> the LSR.
+1
I would add that asking, rhetorically or otherwise, whether 639-3 is
bogus because it contains Orcish is akin to asking whether 639-2 is
bogus because it encodes Klingon, or 15924 because it encodes Tengwar,
or 3166-1 because it encodes Bouvet Island. It takes a lot more than
one or two questionable entries to make an entire standard bogus.
--
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
_______________________________________________ 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.