> Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote on > ietf-languages: > > 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. Do not allow corrections to the ISO data within the Registry. Approach the ISO JAC and update the Registry accordingly. I would recommend taking the ISO 639-3 names wholesale. There is good reason for this. The reference name can be used by applications as opposed to the alpha3 sign. The word interchange springs to mind. Best regards Debbie Debbie Garside Managing Director GeoLang Ltd Corner House Barn Street Haverfordwest Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW Wales UK Tel: 0044 1437 766441 Web: http://www.geolang.com _______________________________________________ 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.