Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1018] Add Macro-Language field

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:33:53 -0700

What will be true for macrolanguages that would not be true of any other
potential 'require-prefix' case is that the macrolanguage relationship
would be defined normatively in ISO 639-3. That is, ISO 639-3 will
specify that a macrolanguage ID such as zap encompasses IDs zaq, zpo...
which will be the basis for determining that zap is a required prefix
for zaq, etc. Hence, I'm somewhat inclined to make a field in the
registry specific to this.

But I'm not sure why we need to resolve this now. I'd rather focus on
resolving any remaining issues that block completion of 3066*bis*.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: "Mark Davis" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 17:23:05 -0700

I agree; we need to focus on 3066bis, since it is already May 32nd.

‎Mark

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 16:33
Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1018] Add Macro-Language field

Peter Constable