Peter Constable wrote:
BTW, I meant to add in this discussion of inverted names and other aspects of the forms of descriptions (not registry deltas!), if there is feedback that this WG would want to send back to the ISO 639 JAC for their consideration as to changes they could make in the descriptions that would make things easier for the LSR, this is a good time to submit that as the JAC will be meeting in a couple of weeks (teleconf) to discuss various issues related to the completion of part 3 and maintenance of the various parts in relation to one another.
How about: use a different separator for multiple names than for reversed names and be consistent in that usage. That is, this list is unambiguous:
Saxon, Low; Low Saxon > There have
been some plans to work on names (e.g. the 639-3 RA had a work item to review the names in the 639-3 draft code table to improve consistency, especially where the draft code table for part 3 doesn’t have names that are widely used, such as “Dari”).
On some level, completing the list of names in the ILSR isn't that important. While it is nice to search the ILSR and find one's language, at some point the user will need to resort to external references for ambiguous items. Attempts to provide *every* commonplace name for a language in one particular language (English??) or script (Latin) is just as foolish as attempting to provide a localization in every language.
(Also, btw: seeing the problems we have with managing description fields has for the first time made me wonder if the formal overhead of ISO 11179 might not offer some benefit. I don’t know enough about 11179 to be able to answer that; it’s just a question that popped into my head.)
You're kidding, right? *We* (LTRU) don't appear to have a problem, woolly attempts at making the registry the One Shining Source for ISO 639 aside. If ISO 639 made the names consistent, there wouldn't be any issue with description fields.
I'd be happier with a rule for Doug and Michael to follow that is clear and unambiguous and has the required latitude---and then letting the problem take care of itself, as, so far, it has. Perhaps:
--If more than one name is provided by the underlying standard for a new or updated record or the same name appears in multiple formats, the Language Subtag Reviewer MAY select which name or names appear in a Description field in the associated registry record (subject to community consensus) and MAY edit the names to correct spelling, orthographic, or formatting errors. The Reviewer MAY split a list of names into separate Description fields. Note: Additional Description fields MAY be added in various formats via the registration process.
--PS> I didn't have any problem finding the language record for 'cu' this morning to see what we'd done previously.
Addison -- Addison Phillips Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ 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.