- From: Baden Hughes <badenh@csse.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 10:40:57 +1000 (EST)
- To: www-i18n-comments@w3.org
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 UTC