> > I have no reason to think this will not happen again during 2008 and > beyond. I think we can reasonably postulate that ISO 639-3, maintained by a group considered more "splitter" than "lumper" when it comes to languages, will find some opportunity at some time in the future to split one of the language codes. They will be more likely to create new Macrolangauges if it can be demonstrated that this is not disruptive. Our goal should be to make it as undisruptive as possible (but not more so). > > RFC 4646bis will follow all of these ISO 639-3 changes; unlike extlangs, > the Macrolanguage field is meant to correlate 1-to-1 with ISO 639-3. > It is possible for extlang to correlate 1:1 with 639-3. In previous edits, for reasons of compatibility, we chose not to make it so. There is some struggle with squaring the rules for what is and what is not a potential extlang that we've haven't seen on list of late simply because we haven't discussed extlangs as other than theoretical constructs. I would point out that, for all the discussion of Serbo-Croatian and Norwegian on this list, there was historically no proposal to actually make extlangs for these languages because all of the encompassed languages have ISO 639-1 codes. Addison _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.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.