Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote: > 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. I hadn't realized, although it makes sense in retrospect, that 639-5 doesn't have the special codes that 639-2 has (especially since I don't have a copy of 639-5). So yes, we will still need to reference -2 as well as -3 and -5, assuming that my suggestion to incorporate the -5 codes is adopted (I haven't seen any major opposition yet, but then it is the weekend). -- 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.