Subject: [Ltru] Re: action item: "other" collections in 639

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 22:23:17 -0800

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>>> Am I correct in thinking the group will want to delay 4645bis again 
>>> for this?
>>
>> I don't see why.  It has no structural effect, and it's just a matter 
>> of 34 name changes later.
>
> I agree: there's no reason for delaying 4646bis for this, unless 
> someone thinks we need some text somewhere pertaining to collections 
> or stability that could not take effect until the change is made in 
> ISO 639-2.

I specifically referred to 4645bis, which (in draft form) contains the 
reloaded Registry, which will be expected to be fairly stable throughout 
the IETF Last Call and RFC Editor waiting periods.  I can't think why 
anyone would want to delay 4646bis for this.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
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: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2008 01:36:15 -0500

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> the IETF Last Call and RFC Editor waiting periods.  

It just means that if the changes go through during the waiting period,
the registry doesn't catch up until later.  This is not a structural
shift like the 3066-4646 transition, just a bulk load of new data.

-- 
Using RELAX NG compact syntax to        John Cowan <[email-masked]>
develop schemas is one of the simple    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
pleasures in life....
        --Jeni Tennison                 <[email-masked]>