[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ltru] 4.1: 639-2 special cases



> From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Doug Ewell


> Second, the collection codes in -2 aren't a subset of -5 anyway,
> because
> of 'bih' and 'day' and 'him' which are in -2 but not -5.  Yes, I know -
> -
> this is supposed to be just a one-time synchronization error, an
> isolated anomaly, won't happen again, 639/JAC will be fixing it any day
> now.  Fine, I just know that they haven't fixed it yet, a month after
> it was reported

Sigh... At least this week LoC acknowledged that JAC made a decision wrt day to make it a collection and that there was an oversight regarding that in the preparation of 639-5.


> > are included as primary language subtags in the registry. The
> > 'Description' field of a collection typically includes the word
> > "languages" to indicate that it represents more than one language.
>
> Why don't we simply direct the user to look for the magic field "Scope:
> collection" in the Registry, instead of telling her to parse
> Description fields for the word "languages"

What a concept! (+1)



> Should be "In the case of 'cmc', for example, the registry also
> contains...."  With the current wording, it looks as though only 'cmc'
> is special in this regard.

+1



> > The subtag 'gem' helps illustrate this further: since it is
> > interpreted inclusively, content tagged with "en" (English), "de"
> > (German), or "gsw" (Swiss German, Alemannic) could also (but SHOULD
> > NOT) be tagged with "gem" (Germanic languages). Obviously, the
> > languages in a collection are frequently not mutually intelligible,
> as
> > this example demonstrates.
>
> Should be "may not be" or "are not necessarily" mutually intelligible.
> This one selected example doesn't demonstrate anything about whether
> languages in a collection are "frequently" not mutually intelligible,
> although we here on the list know that to be the case.

In and of itself, the wording "are frequently not" is OK. I agree, though, that the gsw/de example does not demonstrate *that* claim, whereas Doug's wording, making a lesser claim, would be demonstrated by the example.


Peter
_______________________________________________
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.