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

RE: Comment on LTLI WD

From: Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Tue, 2 May 2006 20:03:21 -0700
To: "'Baden Hughes'" <badenh@csse.unimelb.edu.au>, <www-i18n-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000c01c66e5e$22e9d9d0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com>

RFC 3066bis was developed with the participation and active consultation
with the ISO 639-2 and ISO 639-3 standards folks and contains a number of
features related to the eventual adoption of ISO 639-3 and the future
direction of ISO 639 in general. The reason 3066 and 3066bis do not
reference 693-3 today is that it isn't officially a standard yet.

Standards that adopt ISO 639-3 before it is officially complete are open to
the instability that can affect draft standards.

> 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.

Actually, this is 3066bis, provided that the registry is updated with the
additional subtags when that standard is published. That is currently the
plan and I don't foresee any roadblocks to adoption of 639-3 at an
appropriate time later this year. Multiple standards for language tagging
are a bad idea, in my opinion, since they will lead to fragmentation of
tagging and the confusion of users.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature. 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-i18n-comments-request@w3.org [mailto:www-i18n-comments-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Baden Hughes
> Sent: 2006?5?2? 17:41
> To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Comment on LTLI WD
> 
> 
> 
> 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 03:04:09 GMT

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