Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: registry should copy non-English fields fromISOdocuments

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 05:58:06 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Addison Phillips

> Two potential issues.
> 
> 1. How do we distinguish the French names from the English ones?
(Other
> than by inspection)

Let me add a third potential issue: When ISO 639-3 is initially
published, and the RA has published the initial code table, there will
not be French-language and English-language names for languages. There
will simply be a "reference name" for each language. Over time, the RA
may add documentation to list the names of languages in English, French
and possibly other languages, but it won't happen from the outset.

So...

> 2. Do we include (require?)(allow?) French, English, or both for
future
> registrations that are not sourced from one of the ISO standards (i.e.
> variants)

I suggest that you cannot *require* anything in this regard. Allowing
is, of course, a different matter.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:00:08 +0200

At 14:58 09/04/2005, Peter Constable wrote:
> > (Other than by inspection)
>

This reference name is obviously not a medium term user acceptable 
solution. This is why the ISO 639-3 cannot be a final solution. And why we 
need a multi-language ontlogy.

> > future registrations that are not sourced from one of the ISO standards
> > (ie. variants)
>

I am sorry, but we make _require_ a MUST and main languages a SHOULD. I do 
not think this is negotiable. To the countrary it will become a MUST for 
main languages and a SHOULD for every languages. Extended to icons.

BCP 047 describes a Best Practice. The discussed matter is hardly yet 
"common" since not yet agreed. What ISO does not do is of little interest 
when compared with common equal users needs and rights. Whatever their 
language, origin, script, culture, localisation, budget, intelligence, 
history. Within the limits of practicality I do not think we yet reached.

I fully understand this leads to changes in your vision, way of thinking 
and organizing, etc. but I do not think you can avoid it. Because either we 
will do it or other people will do it, because this is what people and 
processes need.

jfc