> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Kent Karlsson > But I would like some firmer recording in the LSR of the fact that a > code is a collection/family code (rather than relying on "languages" > or "(family)" being part of the name, or just referring back to 639-5). > Something like "Type: language collection" or similar. Pushing this a > bit, macrolanguages should similarly be explicitly recorded as such > (rather than just implicitly), by something like "Type: macrolanguage" > instead of just "Type: language". I know there is a way of inferring > this information, but it is better to be explicit, and not need to > infer that information or refer back to the -3 registry. IIUC, this > would leave "Type: language" for individual languages only. If this sounds a bit familiar, we did discuss this back in ancient times -- Nov 2006. The 639-3 code tables were first getting checked out, and Mark Davis commented on what he thought should be included or excluded in the LSTR. The scope attribute (which is the one you're mentioning) is one that Mark thought wasn't needed since it could be derived. John Cowan concurred. Randy mentioned feature creep in relation to some other info, but didn't make a clear link between that comment and the scope attribute. Doug made mixed comments: he agreed that scope was derivable hence not needed, but also suggested adding _collection_ to Type information. But then we got sidetracked onto Swiss German. I' haven't seen if we ever decided against that or just forgot about it. Peter _______________________________________________ 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.