Mark Davis wrote:
Now before someone says it, I realize that the names in a UI don't have to be the same as the names in the registry. But the closer we get them to being understandable by mortals, the more likely it is that we will have non-confusing names show up in UIs. We might even leave the above in the registry, but have a note in 4646bis about the names. So I think it's worth our taking at least a little bit of time to discuss this.The best I could think of off-hand was something like. ... Swahili (general) Swahili ...
I assume you're talking about what you would do in a UI, not what the Registry should have. We had a big squabble about keeping the ISO names intact. In fact, at one point I was changing the parenthetical comments to "(general)" and "(specific)", or leaving out one or the other, but it was argued that people couldn't tie the Registry's Description fields back to the ISO standard.
So now the only thing I'm concerned about is whether to keep both the 639-2 name, without the parenthetical comment, *and* the 639-3 name, which has it, or whether one of the two names can be jettisoned.
-- 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.