From: Debbie Garside (debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk)
Date: Wed Sep 13 2006 - 13:34:58 CDT
Philippe wrote:
> At some future time, the two competing standards will
> diverge, unless new policies are adopted in ISO 639 (and ISO
> 3166 as well) that will also respect the RFC 4646 stability
> rules; this would require an agreement between the (private)
> IETF/IESG working group and related (half-public and
> official, government-supported) ISO working groups. For now,
> given the existing writers of this RFC suite, there's little
> risk, given that they are already working with other ISO
> standard bodies.
The ISO 639 family of standards do not compete. They co-exist for different
purposes and the whole is managed for stability by the JAC which includes
members from both TC37 and TC46. There are a number of members of the
JAC/TC37/TC46 who are also active on the IETF-languages and LTRU forums
although no formal liaison has been established (as far as I am aware).
Best regards
Debbie Garside
> -----Original Message-----
> From: unicode-bounce@unicode.org
> [mailto:unicode-bounce@unicode.org] On Behalf Of Philippe Verdy
> Sent: 12 September 2006 19:16
> To: Addison Phillips; Mark E. Shoulson
> Cc: Doug Ewell; Unicode Mailing List; UnicoRe Mailing List
> Subject: Re: New RFC 4645-4647 (language tags)
>
> From: "Addison Phillips" <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
> > It's pretty simple, actually. ISO 639-3 and ISO 639-2 share
> a codespace.
> > That is, if you see a code 'xyz' in ISO 639-2, it will have exactly
> > the same meaning in ISO 639-3. If you see a code 'xyz' in
> ISO 639-3,
> > if it is assigned (or becomes assigned) in ISO 639-2 it will have
> > exactly the same meaning.
> >
> > No language will have two codes assigned in the registry.
> Users will,
> > presumably, choose the code that best meets their needs.
>
> How will they be able to choose if there's only one code in
> the registry? Through the registered replacements and the
> language tag canonicalisation described in RFC 4646? When I
> read the reply from Doug, it seems that one of the code needs
> to be registered in the IANA registry, otherwise, neither can
> be used (even if they are in some part of ISO 639).
>
> So the IANA registry becomes the only reference for language
> tags, and it serves another purpose than ISO 639: code
> stability in IANA with RFC 4646 (even if one code is weak),
> instead of currentness and completeness if possible with ISO
> 639 (even if ISO codes have been changed and reassigned,
> something that's nearly impossible to track in applications
> with the current ISO 639 standard).
>
> At some future time, the two competing standards will
> diverge, unless new policies are adopted in ISO 639 (and ISO
> 3166 as well) that will also respect the RFC 4646 stability
> rules; this would require an agreement between the (private)
> IETF/IESG working group and related (half-public and
> official, government-supported) ISO working groups. For now,
> given the existing writers of this RFC suite, there's little
> risk, given that they are already working with other ISO
> standard bodies.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 13 2006 - 13:37:09 CDT