Incidentally, this same question applies to cases like the following: Type: language Subtag: ain Description: Ainu (Japan) Description: Ainu Added: 2005-10-16 where: "Ainu" is the name used in ISO 639-2"Ainu (Japan)" is the name used in ISO 639-3, because there is also an "Ainu (China)" that wasn't coded in 639-2
Does it make sense to include both descriptions? Doing so might confuse people looking for the Chinese Ainu, who find "Ainu = ain" (in a user interface, not looking directly at the LSR) and don't realize there is also a Japanese Ainu and they've hit it by mistake. Excluding "Ainu (Japan)" would guarantee that this would happen. But excluding plain "Ainu" would once again be unacceptable to people who want all ISO 639-1 and -2 names (except inversions, now) retained in the LSR. Which is the least problematic course of action?
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ _______________________________________________ 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.