This is not an issue, just a note that chs has beed retired from 639-3,
but has not yet appeared in 639-5 (which I gather was the intention), along
with two other collection codes (in 639-2) that have not yet appeared in
639-5 (as Doug noted). The two latter are already noted as "collection" in
4645bis draft 9.
/kent k
Den 2009-02-21 19.13, skrev "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>:
> Hi -
>
> Reminder: PLEASE use a new (and appropriate) subject
> line when rasing new issues, and stick to one issue per
> message. PLEASE!
>
>> From: "Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>
>> To: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>; "LTRU Working Group" <ltru at ietf.org>
>> Cc: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>; <ISO639-3 at sil.org>; "Rebecca S.
>> Guenther" <rgue at loc.gov>
>> Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2009 4:30 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Data update from ISO 639-5 to draft-4645bis
> ...
>> I think this holds also for "chs", Chumash, which I gather is the code
>> that is referred to in "1 retirement of a code element representing a
>> language family whose constituents were already present in [the] code set.
>> This code element will be recommended for inclusion in ISO 639-5". See
>> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/cr_files/639-3_ChangeRequests_2008_Sum&add.pdf.
>> (But at the moment chs is not covered by any part of 639, except as
>> "retired"...
>
> It's not at all clear to me what the proposal is here, but I've entered this
> as issue #29.
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.