CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
I propose the following replacement for this sentence:"Existing language subtags corresponding to code elements that were identified by the [ISO639‑3] Registration Authority as representing collection codes, but not assigned in either [ISO639‑3] or [ISO639‑5],were also assigned a Scope value of 'collection'."It reads o.k. My try:"Existing language subtags whose code elements were assigned prior to [ISO639-3] or [ISO639-5] and which were identified by the [ISO639-3] Registration Authority as representing collections were assigned a Scope value of 'collection' {even though they are not listed as such in [ISO639-5]}."
I have no problem with using your wording, but without the curly braces: "... a Scope value of 'collection,' even though they are not..."
{NOTE: Peter Constable's message suggests that these two codes--[bh] and [him]--identified as collections in ISO639-3, should maybe be identified in ISO639-5 ?? instead-- except that ISO639-3 has already been published and these codes are definitely listed there, as 'collective' so I do not see how that will change now. If ISO 639-3 can still be modified, then maybe we should, as Peter suggests, get more time instead of making this change to the draft.}
Waiting for changes in 639-5 could take a LONG time, especially since we currently have no way to check online to see if and when the changes were made.
The codes definitely should be collective and not individual; "Bihari" and "Himachali" are blanket terms for the languages spoken in Bihar and Himachal Pradesh. So there is no work for ISO 639-3 to do.
We're in the middle of a two-week Last Call for draft-4645bis. If we can get a commitment from the 639-5 people that they will make *and publicize* this change within the next week or two, then I'm not opposed to waiting for it. But any change they make here will simply regularize what is currently a special case in the draft; the end result will be the same. So we shouldn't have to worry about making a corrective change later on if we just go with this now.
-- Doug Ewell * Thornton, 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.