Thanks for doing this.

In this particular case, I think the more appropriate date for "jw" is 1989 since this particular correction is tied to the publication of ISO 639-1:1988, just like "ji", "in" and "iw".

That implies separating these two, but I think that's the right thing to do to capture the history.


Peter



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 11:55 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: lang code question: jw
> 
> See what you think of what I just put up. It has a column for notes. I
> contemplated whether to combine the deprecated jw and the deprecated jaw
> in one line. jaw was an alternative code in the initial ISO 639-2, but
> only because it was based on the erroneous jw code. So in order to put
> different notes I made 2 lines, but they could be combined if people think
> that is better.
> 
> http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> On Tue, 18 Jan 2005, [utf-8] HÃ¥vard Hjulstad wrote:
> 
> > I agree that the best option is to add a "note" column. But a column for just very
> few cases is also problematic. And we don't want to start "playing" too much with a
> note column.
> >
> > I think that Peter's argument is a very good basis for a decision. What do people
> think about this?
> >
> > Best regards,
> > HÃ¥vard
> >
> > -------------------------
> > HÃ¥vard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >   http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/
> > -------------------------
> > all outgoing mail is scanned using Norton AntiVirus
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Peter Constable
> > Sent: 18. januar 2005 16:45
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: lang code question: jw
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree that it doesn’t logically belong in the English-name column. I was simply
> following the example of other cases, such as
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -ji
> >
> > yid
> >
> > Yiddish [withdrawn]
> >
> > yiddish
> >
> > 1989
> >
> > Dep
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem is that this is a note, but there’s no note column. Your suggestion
> moves the note into the Category of Change column, which is problematic in that it
> should only contain values Add, Dep, CC, NC or NA. A better solution might be the
> following:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 639-1
> >
> > 639-2
> >
> > English Name of Language
> >
> > French Name of Language
> >
> > Date added
> > or changed
> >
> > Category of Change
> >
> > Note
> >
> >
> > -ji
> >
> > yid
> >
> > Yiddish
> >
> > yiddish
> >
> > 1989
> >
> > Dep
> >
> > withdrawn
> >
> >
> > -jw
> >
> > jav
> >
> > Javanese
> >
> > javanais
> >
> > 1989
> >
> > Dep
> >
> > “jw” published in error; withdrawn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >   _____
> >
> >
> > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> HÃ¥vard Hjulstad
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2005 1:20 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: lang code question: jw
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree that something like this should be done. Logically, the note "[jw published
> in error; withdrawn]" doesn't belong in the English name column. May be:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -jw
> >
> > jav
> >
> > Javanese
> >
> > javanais
> >
> > 1989
> >
> > "jw" published in error; withdrawn
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > HÃ¥vard
> >
> >
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > HÃ¥vard Hjulstad
> >
> > Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> >
> > mailto:[log in to unmask]
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Constable [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 14. januar 2005 23:12
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: FW: lang code question: jw
> >
> > There is some confusion out in the world regarding the alpha-2 symbol "jw" in
> relation to Javanese. See the message below as an example.
> >
> >
> >
> > The history is that, in ISO 639:1988, there was an error in Table 1 (Alphabetical list
> of two-letter language symbols): it showed "jw" for Javanese rather than "jv". Tables
> 2 and 3 as well as the Annex correctly showed "jv". The error was documented in ISO
> 639-1:2002.
> >
> >
> >
> > Nothing is mentioned at http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html
> about "jw" since it was never considered assigned, hence never changed. But one
> can't easily find *any* documentation regarding "jw" on the ISO 639 sites (as far as I
> know, there isn't any). Thus, there isn't any way for people to get clarification about
> "jw".
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd like to suggest that we add the following entry at the end of the list of
> additions/changes to ISO 639 so that "jw" is documented:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -jw
> >
> > jav
> >
> > Javanese [jw published in error; withdrawn]
> >
> > javanais
> >
> > 1989
> >
> > Dep
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mark Davis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Friday, January 14, 2005 1:47 PM
> > To: Peter Constable
> > Cc: Doug Ewell; John Cowan; Addison Phillips
> > Subject: lang code question: jw
> >
> >
> >
> > We have code in ICU that maps obsolete codes, and it maps jw to jv. I was
> >
> > checking lstreg, http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/langcodes.html#ij,
> >
> > and http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html and I couldn't
> >
> > find jw. But I see it in google
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22iso+639%22+jw, such as in SIL:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.ethnologue.com/show_iso639.asp?code=jw
> >
> >
> >
> > If it was indeed a language code, it sounds like it is mistakenly missing
> >
> > from http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html and thus from
> >
> > lstreg.
> >
> >
> >
> > ‎Mark
> >
> >
> >
> >