From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Constable Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:04 PM >> In the current Registry there are two subtags in particular, 'bh' for >> Bihari and 'him' for Himachali... > This is one of the cases that I asked the JAC to review before ISO 639-3 > was published but that they did not review in time. It still hasn't been > reviewed... Let me give a little more precise detail. In early 2004, I made a list (if I've counted correctly) 93 issues involving 107 different entries in 639-2. I got comments from one JAC participant fairly soon, but then didn't get JAC as a commenting and bringing closure to issues. Over the next couple of years, there were a few occasions in which I needed an immediate decision on one of the issues, and got the JAC to come to consensus, but in terms of the whole I hadn't succeFrom ltru-bounces at ietf.org Tue Oct 21 23:32:10 2008 Return-Path: <ltru-bounces at ietf.org> X-Original-To: ltru-archive at megatron.ietf.org Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive at core3.amsl.com Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 292A93A687A; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:32:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Original-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com Delivered-To: ltru at core3.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91D123A6835 for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:32:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -10.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.71 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.111, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PIuOonNKhnyP for <ltru at core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail1.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D2A63A67AD for <ltru at ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:32:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from tk1-exhub-c101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.46.185) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.291.1; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:33:23 -0700 Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.44]) by tk1-exhub-c101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.46.185]) with mapi; Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:33:22 -0700 From: Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> To: Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com>, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru at ietf.org> Date: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 23:33:19 -0700 Thread-Topic: [Ltru] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.txt -- Editorial Comments Only Thread-Index: Ackw1c5qKDYsRvE8RVqqEjfsQZlUaQACK5egAMnjp/A= Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633DC1CFCE at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> References: <mailman.71.1224270007.29146.ltru at ietf.org> <D4A6956EA05446AF9D96645ECF5849F3 at DGBP7M81> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633DB555EE at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633DB555EE at NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Ltru] WG Last Call for draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-06.txt -- Editorial Comments Only X-BeenThere: ltru at ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org> List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru> List-Post: <mailto:ltru at ietf.org> List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request at ietf.org?subject=subscribe> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: ltru-bounces at ietf.org Errors-To: ltru-bounces at ietf.org From: ltru-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf Of Peter Constable Sent: Friday, October 17, 2008 10:04 PM >> In the current Registry there are two subtags in particular, 'bh' for >> Bihari and 'him' for Himachali... > This is one of the cases that I asked the JAC to review before ISO 639-3 > was published but that they did not review in time. It still hasn't been > reviewed... Let me give a little more precise detail. In early 2004, I made a list (if I've counted correctly) 93 issues involving 107 different entries in 639-2. I got comments from one JAC participant fairly soon, but then didn't get JAC as a commenting and bringing closure to issues. Over the next couple of years, there were a few occasions in which I needed an immediate decision on one of the issues, and got the JAC to come to consensus, but in terms of the whole I hadn't succeeded in eded in getting closure. Then, in October 2006, as 639-3 was in its last ballot, the window of opportunity for the JAC to act before 639-3 was published was running out. Three of the 93 items had been explicitly resolved, with 90 left to close. So, I took a different approach. First, I identified 46 that really were not controversial, and considered them to have been tacitly accepted by the absence of any concerns raised. (Most were decisions to deem items to be macrolanguages -- alternatives would have been collection or to narrow denotation to one specific variety.) There were another 6 that really didn't need to be decided before 639-3 was published (e.g. whether mo/mol means the same as ro/ron/rum or not). That left 38 items I wanted decisions on. I broke those into chunks of similar items and started getting the JAC to review one batch at a time. Within a month, I had closure on 19 of those items -- and if you look at the 639-2 change history, you'll see a flurry of changes between 2006-10-25 and 2006-11-22 (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php). Now, when I organized those batches of similar items, I chose to leave out any languages of India, having in mind to discuss those last, as they included some of the most complicated cases and so were most likely to end up getting bogged down in inaction. I ended up with 12 issues on which I never got a JAC decision (but would have wanted to) before 639-3 went live: Language ID Proposed change Bihari bh/bih collection Himachali him collection Rajasthani raj macrolanguage Konkani kok macrolanguage Malay ms/msa/may macrolanguage Marwari mwr macrolanguage Swahili sw/swa macrolanguage Dogri doi macrolanguage Lahnda lah macrolanguage Panjabi pa/pan clarify denotation Tibetan bo/bod/tib clarify denotation After 639-3 was published, the urgency (and in some cases even the opportunity) for discussing these and taking actions went away. Peter _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru getting closure. Then, in October 2006, as 639-3 was in its last ballot, the window of opportunity for the JAC to act before 639-3 was published was running out. Three of the 93 items had been explicitly resolved, with 90 left to close. So, I took a different approach. First, I identified 46 that really were not controversial, and considered them to have been tacitly accepted by the absence of any concerns raised. (Most were decisions to deem items to be macrolanguages -- alternatives would have been collection or to narrow denotation to one specific variety.) There were another 6 that really didn't need to be decided before 639-3 was published (e.g. whether mo/mol means the same as ro/ron/rum or not). That left 38 items I wanted decisions on. I broke those into chunks of similar items and started getting the JAC to review one batch at a time. Within a month, I had closure on 19 of those items -- and if you look at the 639-2 change history, you'll see a flurry of changes between 2006-10-25 and 2006-11-22 (http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_changes.php). Now, when I organized those batches of similar items, I chose to leave out any languages of India, having in mind to discuss those last, as they included some of the most complicated cases and so were most likely to end up getting bogged down in inaction. I ended up with 12 issues on which I never got a JAC decision (but would have wanted to) before 639-3 went live: Language ID Proposed change Bihari bh/bih collection Himachali him collection Rajasthani raj macrolanguage Konkani kok macrolanguage Malay ms/msa/may macrolanguage Marwari mwr macrolanguage Swahili sw/swa macrolanguage Dogri doi macrolanguage Lahnda lah macrolanguage Panjabi pa/pan clarify denotation Tibetan bo/bod/tib clarify denotation After 639-3 was published, the urgency (and in some cases even the opportunity) for discussing these and taking actions went away. 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.