Subject: [Ltru] Re: Comorian and other issues

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:10:19 -0800

Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1 dot krebs3 at netcourrier dot com> wrote:

> 2 western variant
> For "western" generic variant previously discuted
> ( 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2006-August/004899.html
> etc. ), you can see
> fa-pes (Western Farsi)
> fa-prs (Eastern Farsi)
> hy-arevmda (Western Armenian)
> hy-arevela (Eastern Armenian)

As you can see from looking at the Registry, the "'western' generic 
variant" didn't materialize.  It was deemed too broad, and so instead we 
have "arevmda" and "arevela" which apply specifically to Armenian. 
"Western" and "Eastern" mean very different things depending on the 
language those words modify.

> 5 modified Description
> For the following sutag, the Description: was modified, and so the 
> meaning too.

When an ISO agency changes the Description but keeps the same code 
element, they are expressing their view that the entity being coded is 
the same.  We reflect that view in standards-based subtags.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Nicolas Krebs <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:25:26 +0100

>Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:19:19 -0500
>To: Nicolas Krebs <[email-masked]>
>CC: [email-masked]
>Subject: Re: [Ltru] Comorian and other issues
>From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
>
>Nicolas Krebs scripsit:
>
>> After partial review of urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01 (
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-01 ), i found some
>> issue, a question and our old friend -western.
>
>Generic note:  These considerations are appropriate for the ISO 693-3
>Registration Authority, not for ietf-languages; we just clone what
>they provide.  My comments are not authoritative.

So ltru wg can not fix bug of ISO 639-3 ? 

>> 3 Comorian
>
>[snip]
>
>> If i understand correctly, swb is the encompass language, and the
>> other are dialect. Then:
>
>That's not the view of 639-3, which treats the four as separate and
>distinct languages.  Comorian (swb) is the largest, but it's not
>considered to encompass the others.

So swb correspond to specific (1) Comorian of people who said that there is 
no specific (1) Comorian and only one generic (1) Comorian ? 

1: i use deliberately two word of urn:ietf:id:draft-ietf-ltru-4645bis-0, 
correct me if i use it wrongly.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:48:59 -0800

> So ltru wg can not fix bug of ISO 639-3 ?

Not only do we not "fix" them, it's not even our job to decide that they 
are "bugs."  We don't pretend to know more about Comorian, or any other 
language, than the experts who maintain the ISO standard.  IIRC, our 
deviation from external standards is limited to the following:

1.  We don't add a new subtag corresponding to a new code element that 
would duplicate or conflict with other subtags.

2.  We deprecate, but do not delete, an existing subtag corresponding to 
a deleted or withdrawn code element.

---

From: Nicolas Krebs <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Feb 2007 12:52:24 +0100

>From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
>To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
>Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 06:48:59 -0800
>Subject: [Ltru] Re: Comorian and other issues
>
>are "bugs."  

Understoud. Then thanks for the three replies of you and John Cowan, 
and end of thread.