Mark Davis scripsit:
> In general, I think adding 639-5 codes would be a good idea, as long as the
> list will be publicly available by the time we release. I'm however a bit
> concerned by the issues raised by John, of codes that have the same
> denotation as 639-3 codes; we need to resolve that before we can have a full
> consensus. (We have to discuss this, but my preference for John's cases
> would be rather than excluding the codes, to deprecate&prefer the others.)
I don't understand the purpose of this. When we added the 639-2 codes,
we did not add 'eng' as a pre-deprecated subtag with a Preferred-Value of
'en'. If we have good reason to exclude something, we should exclude it.
> On the part of the two-letter primary language subtags, I think our best
> approach would just disallow them. While it would be very unlikely that this
> would ever happen, it is very simple for us to prevent any instabilities
> that might occur.
639-1 should stay in, because we might have another politically motivated
split where the successor languages are individually important enough
to get 639-1 codes.
--
After fixing the Y2K bug in an application: John Cowan
WELCOME TO <censored> cowan at ccil.org
DATE: MONDAK, JANUARK 1, 1900 http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
_______________________________________________
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.