Doug Ewell wrote:
> If I remember correctly, what I suggested was to add a "Scope" field to
> the Registry that would reflect both the Scope and Language_Type fields
> in the ISO 639-3 database. This would be something like "macrolanguage"
> for macrolanguages, "special" for things like 'mis' and 'mul',
> "collection" for collection codes, and other terms like "extinct" and
> "constructed" and "historic" as indicated by 639-3. The most common
> scope/type combination by far ("individual, living") would be
> indicated by the absence of a Scope field. All of this would be
> strictly tied to ISO 639-3, ...
Well, as others noted (and I forgot about) there are some "special"
codes from ISO 639-2 which do not occur in -3 and maybe not -5 either
(not sure about the latter). And collection codes would be tied to
-5 (rather than -2, assuming we concur to adopt -5) since they do not
occur in -3. So not all of that can be strictly tied to -3.
/kent k
_______________________________________________
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.