Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: >>> 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. > > Neither the JAC nor the 639-1/RA can institute a rule about practice > for maintaining the LSTR. No, of course they can't. I phrased that badly. What I meant to say... > The JAC has a guideline not to add an alpha-2 in case an alpha-3 > previously existed, though that is not a binding rule. The JAC has > also informally agreed to adopt a very high bar for alpha-2 additions, > making new alpha-2 additions less likely. ... was that it might be better if ISO 639-* changed that to a binding rule: no more alpha-2's, period. Of course my goal here, again, is to avoid cherry-picking ISO 639-1 in the unlikely event they break their guideline. -- 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.