Re: [dxwg] [I18N] References to ISO-639 vs. BCP47 (#959)

Having re-read this thread this morning and gone back to the editor's draft... the text [here]( says:

>Resources defined by the Library of Congress (ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2) SHOULD be used. If a ISO 639-1 (two-letter) code is defined for language, then its corresponding IRI SHOULD be used; if no ISO 639-1 code is defined, then IRI corresponding to the ISO 639-2 (three-letter) code SHOULD be used.

I think this should say something entirely different. It should probably say something like:

> Different standards are used to identify languages. Where possible, BCP47 language tags SHOULD be used. Resources defined by ISO 639 MAY also be used. If an ISO 639-1 (two-letter) code is defined for a language, then its corresponding IRI SHOULD be used in preference to the ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3 code.

Alternatively, if you don't want to change the recommendation, a health warning could be something like:

> NOTE: requirements for identification of natural language in linked data specifications are evolving. Many applications use [BCP47] language tags for this purpose. ISO 639 also provides additional codes in ISO 639-3 which might be required for some uses.

I'm happy to discuss the details here. If you need me to attend a future call, please let me know.

(A couple of minor side notes. BCP47 is a better reference than any of its constituent RFCs; the current "core" RFC of BCP47 is 5646 (4646 was an older edition). ISO 639-3 and -2 are linked together (`3` is a superset of `2`), but the reference for `3`, as far as I recall, is not the Library of Congress, hence my omission of LOC in my suggested text)

GitHub Notification of comment by aphillips
Please view or discuss this issue at using your GitHub account

Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in

Received on Friday, 6 May 2022 15:40:23 UTC