Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote: > Where we need to draw the line is when the discussion comes into the > realm of re-designing ISO 639 or making language classification > decisions. This is absolutely beyond the scope of this WG and should > be directed to ISO TC37/SC2/WG1 or the ISO 639 JAC. As this RFC is > way over the timescale originally envisaged for completion it is in > everyone's interest to try to resolve the issues that are within scope > rather than focussing on issues that cannot be resolved other than by > external parties. But this is just my humble opinion in the light of > trying to get the important issues, such as extlang/no extlang > resolved, the ultimate call is with the co-chairs. Also my opinion. Specifically, remaking ISO 639-3 wouldn't be in our scope even if we weren't more than 15 months behind schedule (*) but given that we are, it is especially important to focus on getting the chartered work done. (*) I was wrong earlier when I implied the we were over two years behind. I still think the original charter had us finishing our work in early 2006, but actual publication was always contingent on the rollout of ISO 639-3. Their first "official" downloadable files came in February 2007. So we're "only" 15.n months behind, except that somehow I don't feel like IETF LC is right around the corner. -- Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://www.ewellic.org 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://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.