|
Update on this: I’ve got agreement in principle from LOC to change
entries of the form “Foo (Other)” to “Foo languages” in ISO 639-2. In doing
this, they want to provide some info as to which individual-language entries in
639-2 are encompassed within each collection so that applications can derive “other”
groups if that’s how they want to use them. So, I’m not sure just how quickly
that change will appear in the code tables on the 639-2 site. (I wouldn’t
expect to see a change on the 639-3 site until that has changed on the 639-2
site.) Peter From: Peter Constable
[mailto:petercon at microsoft.com] Let me clarify this sub-thread: I have questioned in the past
whether language collection ID of any kind are useful in IETF language tags.
Whenever I made that suggestion, there were others here insisting that they
wanted them kept. I am not proposing any change in this regard at this time. This
only came up because I had poorly worded my statement about getting rid of
“(Other)” from language-collection names, and Doug thought I was suggesting
that ISO 639 “withdraw” those entries – I was not suggesting that. Let me clarify what change I am pursuing: I am asking the JAC to
remove “(Other)” from the names of language-collection entries that currently
contain that string. That is *all* this thread was intended to be about. Peter From: Mark Davis
[mailto:mark.davis at icu-project.org] Nobody is calling for removing.
Peter's action was to take "(Other)" out of the names, that's all. On Nov 29, 2007 7:25 AM, Frank Ellermann < nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de> wrote: Peter Constable wrote: "Removing" can't fly. Do you mean "not
add new" (in the 4645bis
|
_______________________________________________ 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.