Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: > If it's an addition to 639-1, then either it will already have been in > 639-2, or it is being added to both simultaneously, and it would get > announced together. My only concern is that the words "simultaneously" and "together" might have a creative meaning when applied to two different RAs using their own public reporting mechanisms and philosophies. Sometimes one RA makes a change that isn't reflected in the other 639 part for some time. See my comment earlier today about the new name for 'zxx' still not appearing in the new 639-3 files, published within the past two days, though it was added to 639-2 eight weeks ago. Our goal on ietf-languages -- mine, at least -- is to be responsive in registering subtags to track ISO. If one "simultaneous" announcement comes significantly before the other, do we run the risk of making the wrong change in the Registry? > It if is a new addition to 639-3, then likely it is not something that > would make it into 639-1. In general, I expect new additions to 639-1 > to be pretty rare. That seems probable. The last 2-letter code to be added was 'ht' in February 2003. > I've suggested before that we could decide that we will never again > register something from 639-1. That would eliminate these concerns > entirely. It might be better if ISO 639-1 instituted such a rule, instead of us. -- 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.