Doug wrote: >>I guess the evidence would be in the form of an e-mail trail. All change requests are publicized by the RA's in question (I believe). Kind regards Debbie -----Original Message----- From: Doug Ewell [mailto:doug at ewellic.org] Sent: 10 June 2009 14:53 To: LTRU Working Group Cc: debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk Subject: Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUST language in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a) Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote: > --- > > In order for a primary language subtag request to be considered for > registration within the Language Subtag Registry, the requester MUST > supply evidence that they have previously applied to the ISO 639 JAC > to encode the entity and that the request has been rejected. > > --- I guess the evidence would be in the form of an e-mail trail. > I do see the need to go to ISO 639 JAC first. We really do not want > to register primary language subtags and then find that after the > event the ISO 639 JAC allocate their own subtag - which means ours > would have to be deprecated. This is a good point. But I can imagine JAC turning down a request at first, when presented by an individual with a few Web references (who proceeds to persuade the Reviewer to register it), and then subsequently approving a later request for the same entity when presented by a national standards body citing more "serious" references. That would cause ietf-languages to have to deprecate the primary language subtag anyway. There is already considerable churn in ISO 639-3, certainly more than we've seen with the other parts (although perhaps commensurate with the difference in scope). I wouldn't fight hard against making this change, I just didn't see it as necessary. I do feel, as others do, that it is highly unlikely that ietf-languages and the Reviewer will ever approve a non-639 primary language subtag, either one that has not been presented to 639 or one that has been rejected. -- 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 ? Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 17:53 Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.11/2089 - Release Date: 30/04/2009 17:53
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.