RE: Request for PR for XML 1.1

ISO 639 part 2 was published in 1998, see
http://www.iso.ch/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.CatalogueDetail?CSNUMBER=4767&I
CS1=1&ICS2=140&ICS3=20 :

ISO 639-2:1998 "Codes for the representation of names of languages -- Part
2: Alpha-3 code", bilingual, 66 pages, PDF, CHF 156,00.

Searching the ISO catalog for 10639 yields nothing.

-- 
François

> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : C. M. Sperberg-McQueen [mailto:cmsmcq@acm.org]
> Envoyé : 14 octobre 2003 11:50
> À : Chris Lilley
> Cc : Paul Grosso; W3C XML Coordination Group; xml-editor@w3.org
> Objet : Re: Request for PR for XML 1.1
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:03, Chris Lilley wrote:
> 
> > I note an error in this document. Although the error is in 
> a Note and,
> > perhaps, non-normative it is still incorrect and should be 
> corrected.
> > I do not believe that correction of the error would affect 
> conformance
> > of XML processors.
> > 
> > 2.12 Language Identification
> > 
> > 
> http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2003/10/PR-xml11-20031010/PR-xml11
> -20031010-review.html#sec-lang-tag
> > 
> > 
> > > [IETF RFC 3066] tags are constructed from two-letter 
> language codes
> > > as defined by [ISO 639], from two-letter country codes as 
> defined by
> > > [ISO 3166], or from language identifiers registered with the
> > > Internet Assigned Numbers Authority [IANA-LANGCODES]
> > 
> > That is correct but not complete, and could lead implementors into
> > error.
> > 
> > Three-letter language codes are also standardized by ISO 639
> > - this is a change from when XML 1.0 was originally written. Quoting
> > from RFC 3066:
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3066.txt
> > 
> > > All 3-letter subtags are interpreted according to 
> assignments found
> > > in ISO 639 part 2, "Codes for the representation of names of
> > > languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code [ISO 639-2]", or assignments
> > > subsequently made by the ISO 639 part 2 maintenance agency or
> > > governing standardization bodies.
> 
> Just out of caution -- do you have any evidence other than
> RFC 3066 that ISO 639 part 2, also known as ISO 10639, has
> in fact become an IS?  People have been arguing that discussions
> of language codes should reference it, because it was going to
> be an IS any day now, for a while now -- I believe I was first
> told that it was as good as finished sometime in the early 
> 1990s.  Is it in fact done?  When did it happen?
> 
> Michael
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 14 October 2003 12:09:39 UTC