This thread very much has to do with entries in the Registry and is really out of scope for LTRU.The only reason it does have to do with LTRU is that we are considering adding 639-3, and 639-3 lists "Alemanic" as the *sole* name for gsw, which is clearly incorrect. Thus it raises the issue of whether to take the 639-3 names wholesale, or allow corrections.
Since you bring it up, and since we are now in December, and our IETF Last Call drafts are due next month...
I should remind the LTRU group that I'm still waiting for a decision on which names from the ISO 639 family of standards are to be added to the Registry as Description fields, and I'm waiting for a revised version of draft-4646bis that answers that question. It was stated that I need to wait until the rules are set out in 4646bis before implementing them in 4645bis. This is the only factor that is delaying the release of draft-4645bis-01.
-- 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.