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

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



> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison at amazon.com]

> > 2. The first itemized paragraph discusses collections...

> > I find the wording creates a feel of discontinuity from the intro
> > paragraph as it's not obvious how this relates to 639-2,
> > particularly given the reference to 639-5.
> >
> > Suggested revision:
> > ----------------
> > ISO 639-2 includes codes for language collections, as does [ISO
> > 639-5]. A "language collection" code represents multiple related
> > languages. These codes are included as primary language subtags in
> > the registry. However, specific language subtags or subtag
> > sequences SHOULD be used in preference to subtags for language
> > collections. For example...
> > ----------------
>
> I think the first sentence is somewhat artificial (as is the original
> para): you can't tell the source from the registry anyway.
>
> Your suggested revision doesn't follow the pattern for other items here,
> which all start with specific advice. Thus I modified the para...

You had some follow-on comments, and in the end there's just a reference to ISO 639-5, which still leaves a discontinuity from the intro paragraph and its reference to 639-2. One more suggested revision:

----------------
Use a specific language subtags or sequences of subtags in preference to subtags for language collections. A "language collection" is a subtag that represents multiple related languages. These codes comprise the set of [ISO639‑5] codes, and many are also included in ISO 639-2; all are included as primary language subtags in the registry. The 'Scope' field for a collection subtag has the value 'collection'. ...
----------------


I'm satisfied with the resolution of other items I raised in this thread.



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.