Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
Esperanto and Orcish don't play in the same league, that's a good "C", it couldn't cause a problem _because_ it already made it into 639-2.Other good "C" not in 639-2 would be a problem, as far as registering them individually as needed is a problem (in theory it should be easy).
How do you determine which are "good C" and which are "bad C"? By that I don't mean that Esperanto is "good" because it has 2 million speakers (Ethnologue) or Orcish is "bad" because it has only 30 words. I want to know what general criteria you would use for the cases that are not nearly this obvious.
This registration business (like RFC publication) boils down to "filter nonsense and try to reflect some useful reality". Some humans do this, and if it's an open process with experts and appeals etc. we hope that the outcome is good enough.
I for one am not going to claim to be the arbiter of what is "nonsense" in ISO 639-3. You may do so if you wish.
To clarify:I have no problem with the idea of going to the ISO such-and-so MA and asking that a code element be added or deleted, or that a spelling be changed or something.
I have a big problem with setting up a protocol that claims to use ISO such-and-so, but then excludes some of its code elements, NOT because they cause a conflict or don't make sense with the protocol, but because somebody doesn't like them or finds them "ugly." That is pure cherry-picking, of the type described by Bruce Lilly in December 2004, and it WILL get this draft rejected by IESG.
-- 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.