[Ltru] Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)")

["Frank Ellermann" <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>]

Peter Constable wrote:

>> 3066 and 4646 went to great lengths that this is
>> not possible, including a promise from ISO in the
>> text.
 
> Whate are you referring to? I am not aware that
> IETF requested any promises from ISO wrt descriptions.

Bottom of <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4646#page-9>:

The promise in RFC 3066 and 4646 is about alpha-2
and alpha-3 codes, for an existing alpha-3 code
for a language (identified by its description)
there won't be a new alpha-2 code (with the same
description because it's the same language).

My interpretation wrt the case at hand added in
parentheses.
 
>> The SIL pages claim that the description for "sw"
>> is "Swahili (macrolanguage)".  The 4646 registry
>> claims that it's "Swahili", at least one of them
>> is wrong.
 
> SIL's pages in relation to this entry in ISO 639-3
> are not wrong wrt ISO 639.

Then the 4646 registry must be wrong, it's supposed
to reflect whatever description ISO 639-1 offers for
an alpha-2 code.  Caveat, I looked up the ISO 639-1
"sw" on the SIL Web form, not some ISO 639-3 "sw".

 Frank



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru