Re: [Ltru] Issue #59: replace RECOMMENDED language with MUSTlanguage in 2.2.1 (Apps #12a)

[Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform.no>]

Doug Ewell On 09-06-12 04.39:
> Leif Halvard Silli <lhs at malform dot no> wrote:
>
> > > -- At the time this document was created, there were no examples of 
> > > this kind of subtag. Future registrations of this type are 
> > > discouraged: an attempt to register any new proposed primary language 
> > > MUST be made with ISO 639. Proposals rejected by ISO 639/ RA-JAC are 
> > > unlikely to meet the criteria for primary language subtags and are 
> > > thus unlikely to be registered. --
> >
> > - (minus)
> >
> > This seems redundant and over-explained. If being registered with ISO 
> > is close to being a criteria in itself, then saying that those that 
> > are rejected by ISO are "unlikely to meet the criteria" undermines 
> > that very point.
>
> Disagree.  We need all that wording to clarify that "being registered 
> with ISO" is not quite a criterion in itself.  It is possible, 
> conceivable, imaginable that a primary language subtag could be 
> registered in the LSR without being accepted for ISO 639 -- it's just 
> very unlikely.  Saying that it's not possible at all, or implying that 
> by removing this wording, would be an unwanted technical change.


Alexey's text makes it clear that one could get registered with 
IANA without being registered with ISO. I cannot see that 
Addison's text make that any clearer. I see that you have the 
independence of the LSR in mind, but I don't get the same message 
as you from Addison's text.

What does "are unlikely to meet the criteria" mean? Does it mean 
"are not likely _to have met_ the criteria, but we will do an 
extra check, of course"? In other words: Is ISO acceptance a 
quality control, only? That is the impression I get from the text. 
Or is ISO acceptance actually a _qualifying_ factor in itself? 
(And 'qualifying' is of course not the same as guarantee of 
registration.) If so, then this is better expressed in Alexey's 
text, IMHO.

But may be I care too much about ISO. If the rest are in favour of 
this text, then I'll not stand in the way.
--
leif halvard silli