W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-i18n-comments@w3.org > May 2006

Comment on LTLI WD

From: Baden Hughes <badenh@csse.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:40:57 +1000 (EST)
To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.61.0605031032370.10491@mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU>


Hi

One issue which concerns me is the choice of RFC 3066 (ISO639-2) as the 
basis for defining language values, particularly in the context where a new ISO 
standard (ISO639-3) will be shortly adopted [1]. ISO639-3 extends 
ISO/DIS 639-2 to cover all known languages and represents the merging of 
the two internationally authoritative sources on language classifications 
(the Ethnologue [2] and the LinguistList [3]), and is far more fine 
grained than ISO639-2. It seems to me that in the context of LTLI, we should use the 
finer grained standard, minimally as a supported option (note this is not 
in RFC 3066/RFC 3066bis) and arguably from a linguistic standpoint by 
default. It is interesting to note that other large communities are actively considering 
the use of ISO639-3 as a preference (eg Dublin Core).

Regards

Baden

[1] http://www.sil.org/iso639-3
[2] http://www.ethnologue.com
[3] http://www.linguistlist.org
Received on Wednesday, 3 May 2006 00:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 08:32:35 GMT