Subject: RE: [Ltru] additional changes...

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 10:03:48 -0700

> From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]]

> My point is that the Draft could easily be made conformant to ISO
11179

No, you miss my point: if ISO 11179 does not define conformance
requirements, it is impossible to say "conforms to ISO 11179".

> So, you fully make my point in saying "I don't think anyone can say
that
> the langtag is or isn't conformant".
> 
> - the Charter asks we make sure that the Draft conforms the underlying
ISO
> standard, so if you don't know you should work on it.

ISO 11179 is not and never has been considered one of the "underlying
ISO standards" for RFC 3066(bis).

Peter Constable

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2005 19:29:11 +0200

>requirements, it is impossible to say "conforms to ISO 11179".

I will not dispute with you on this. There is no procedure to declare a 
registry or a model conforms to ISO 11179. As there is no procedure to 
declare that a text is in French or English.

There is a decision by an author to write a text in French or in English. 
There is an obvious decision by the authors of the Draft not to write in 
"ISO 11179", there is a declare non-desire for ISO 639-3 and a declare 
desire by the authors of ISO 639-6.

>ISO standards" for RFC 3066(bis).

This is something you will have to document when someone of the IESG cast a 
glance to ISO 639-4 and ISO 639-6. Because ISO 11179 is what permits to 
corelate ISO 3166, 639, 15924 .... and to address stability over changes.

Take care and have a nice WE.
jfc