Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
At this point (i.e. 4646bis era), I see no reason why the LSR could not rely solely on data provided by the 639-3 RA.
Not solely, of course, since the LSR includes collective "languages" from 639-2 that do not exist in 639-3, but which must remain in the LSR.
Other than that, though, are you saying that the names from 639-2 that are not in 639-3 should be removed from the LSR? Bear in mind that the language names recently added to 639-2 and the LSR (Bedawiyet, Dene Suline, Kapampangan, etc.) are not yet in the available 639-3 download files. Accepting 639-3 without also considering 639-2 would take the LSR back a few steps.
-- 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.