Subject: [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X (macrolanguage)")

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 14:59:24 -0800

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> At this point (i.e. 4646bis era), I see no reason why the LSR could 
> not rely solely on data provided by the 639-3 RA.

Not solely, of course, since the LSR includes collective "languages" 
from 639-2 that do not exist in 639-3, but which must remain in the LSR.

Other than that, though, are you saying that the names from 639-2 that 
are not in 639-3 should be removed from the LSR?  Bear in mind that the 
language names recently added to 639-2 and the LSR (Bedawiyet, Dene 
Suline, Kapampangan, etc.) are not yet in the available 639-3 download 
files.  Accepting 639-3 without also considering 639-2 would take the 
LSR back a few steps.

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

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

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 19:05:58 -0800

Hmmm... I was thinking changes to 639-2 were sync'd in 639-3.

And I keep overlooking collections (which I think are not terribly useful in language tags).

Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Obsolete descriptions (was: "X" vs. 'X
> (macrolanguage)")
>