Doug Ewell scripsit: > >Subtag:bh Description:Bihari Added:2005-10-16 Scope:collection > >Subtag:him Description:Himachali Added:2005-10-16 Scope:collection > > As you said, this isn't an LTRU issue; we use the exact ISO 639 names, > and document where we don't. I checked, and both 639-2 and 639-3 call > these "Bihari" and "Himachali". I wonder if this is one reason why > 639-5 missed them. Probably. It was the 639-3 analysis (in fact, Peter Constable's) who showed that these names represented not languages but collections. See http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_iso639.asp?code=bih and http://www.ethnologue.com/14/show_iso639.asp?code=him for details. This set of URLs is an excellent set of resources showing the (sometimes obsolete) 639-3 view of various 639-2 codes. -- Newbies always ask: John Cowan "Elements or attributes? http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Which will serve me best?" cowan at ccil.org Those who know roar like lions; Wise hackers smile like tigers. --a tanka, or extended haiku _______________________________________________ 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.