Subject: RE: [Ltru] [semi-OT] ISO 639-3, record-jars, and Boontling

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 13:49:08 -0700

I would characterize the changes that resulted from the CD ballot
comments for ISO 639-3 as being mainly editorial in nature. The biggest
technical change was to include macrolanguages in the ISO 639-3 code
table (in the CD, I had proposed that *only* individual language
categories would be included in the 639-3 code tables). The other main
technical changes had to do with adding more definitions for
terminology, clarifying certain details related to how changes would be
handled, and a very small number of changes in the draft code table.

I expect that the DIS ballot comments will result in fewer changes,
though I cannot predict that with any certainty. IIRC, a CD does not get
distributed as widely as a DIS, so there may be comments from countries
that are seeing a draft for the first time during this ballot period.

Peter Constable

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of L.Gillam
Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 5:17 PM
To: ltru
Subject: RE: [Ltru] [semi-OT] ISO 639-3, record-jars, and Boontling

639-4 is going to be "a while" in process. N.B. 5 month DIS ballot for
639-3, possible FDIS stage then publication (final editorial phase with
ISO central secretariat). Unless activity on -4 suddenly happens at the
Berlin metadata event next week, which it might or it might not, I'm not
aware of a current timescale for this document beyond ISO time limits
(the clock is certainly ticking).

Perhaps Peter Constable can comment on whether existing comments
received at CD ballot have resulted in any alteration of the essence of
-3, comments on the codes themselves (not part of the published
standard) aside.

________________________________

From: [email-masked] on behalf of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
Sent: Wed 06/04/2005 00:48
To: Randy Presuhn; ltru
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [semi-OT] ISO 639-3, record-jars, and Boontling

At 07:41 21/03/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>(co-chair hat off)
> > From: "John Cowan" <[email-masked]>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
> > Cc: <[email-masked]>
> > Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2005 8:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] [semi-OT] ISO 639-3, record-jars, and Boontling
>...
> > From what I understand of the IETF process, this WG could go dormant
> > until ISO 639-3 was released, and then wake up for a relatively
brief
> > period to incorporate the necessary few paragraphs in RFC 3066bis to
> > create RFC 3066ter.
>...
>
>I think it would be really nice if we could put in text now that would
not
>need revision later.

I fully agree with that. In particular ISO 639-4, which should permits
to
make the BCP 047 consistent with ISO 639-3, ISO 639-6 and the IANA
entries
- and obviously ISO 3166-2.
jfc

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

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

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:13:26 -0400

Peter Constable scripsit:

> categories would be included in the 639-3 code tables). 

Marked as such, or not marked separately from the pure individual languages?

> very small number of changes in the draft code table.

Can I reiterate my long-standing request for a list of codes changed
between Ethnologue and the current ISO 639-3 draft?  Thanks.

-- 
He played King Lear as though           John Cowan <[email-masked]>
someone had played the ace.             http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
        --Eugene Field                  http://www.reutershealth.com