IMO, no. If a voting member would like a vote, though, I won't object.
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of ISO639-3
Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2011 2:53 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: ISO-639 code 'www'
Dear JAC for ISO639,
First, best wishes to Rebecca on her retirement. I didn't receive the initial announcement, but have seen the greetings others are sending.
It is probably time to conclude the question about [www]. The various responses seem to favor keeping the code, with one person strongly in favor of retirement. Do we need to have a formal vote?
On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 03:01:07 +0000
Peter Constable <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>I agree that "ftp://" is entirely different from "ftp.wikipedia.org". But I still don't think that we should abandon stability because a Web site, even Wikipedia, chooses to mix ISO 639 IDs in the same distribution position with "www" and "ftp" as sub-domain names. If ISO 3166 were to go changing their IDs (alpha 2 or alpha 3) for such reasons, we would rightly criticize them for not being stable. Same with other standards.
>From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
>Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 2:15 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: ISO-639 code 'www'
>On 22 Jul 2011, at 18:38, Peter Constable wrote:
>> I agree with Havard completely. And I do not think that Michael has refuted any of my points. (He had said, 'Peter's example "ftp://" is not relevant', though I was basically saying the same thing: that labels appearing in those protocol elements are not a problem.)
>ftp:// is entirely different from ftp.wikipedia.org
>www:// is meaningless in every context.
>Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/