LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  March 2001

ISOJAC March 2001

Subject:

Re: (iso639.281) Not freezing ISO 639-1

From:

Havard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Wed, 7 Mar 2001 09:56:12 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (89 lines)

I have read many interesting and good arguments in this email thread. I am
confident that ISO/TC37, ISO/TC46, and the JAC will take all these arguments
into consideration.

Democracy normally means that a dicision ("final" or not) is valid until a
new decision is made that cancels it. In international standardization the
situation is somewhat different: A standard is valid for 5 years only, at
which point in time a positive decision needs to be made whether to renew it
or change it. As ISO committees we need to stick to these rules: We aren't
writing for "eternity", we are writing to satisfy current needs.

Personally I will bear all the good arguments in mind, and I will do my best
to try to satisfy the needs that are "current" at any point in time.

I don't think there is that much point in going any further with this
discussion NOW. Let's re-iterate the issue in 5, 10, and 15 years.

Best regards,
Havard Hjulstad

-------------------------
Havard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Radet for teknisk terminologi (RTT)
  (Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology)
  Postboks 660 Skoyen
  NO-0214  Oslo, Norway
  tel: +47-22049225, dir: +47-22049259
  faks: +47-22434224
  http://www.rtt.org/
-------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: Harald Alvestrand [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 6. mars 2001 23:07
To: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]; [log in to unmask]
Subject: (iso639.281) Not freezing ISO 639-1


At 15:09 06/03/2001 +0000, John Clews wrote:
>I agree entirely with this. However, there are details about both
>ISO 639:1988 and ISO 639-1 (not yet published but due to be published
>during 2001) which mean that what the ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee
>proposed in Washington in February 2000, will pose problems for the
>Internet community and in fact all users.
>
>What follows is an attempt to satisfy both apparently opposed groups,
>and to find a workable solution for all users of language codes.
>
>It works through suggesting freezing a different animal, at a more
>obvious freezing point (1988). This email contains all the details
>about what is required (largely as an IETF activity rather than an
>ISO activity) to achieve these ends: please study the detail
>carefully before rushing to reply.

John,

you are somewhat late in proposing a freeze based on 639:1988, since a lot
of the changes since 1988 (like the change of code for Yiddish) were
incorporated already in RFC 1766.

In general, both RFC 1766 and RFC 3066 were written from the viewpoint that
the maintenance of the codesets was an ISO activity, and that having
something mainatined by the IETF separately from the ISO activity would be
a recipe for disaster. Having ALMOST equal sets of codes for languages is a
Bad Thing (see my earlier vituperative comments on 639-2's T and B codes..)

The particular solution that was proposed by JAC, and referred to in RFC
3066, was not a freeze on ISO 639-1, but a freeze on *adding new two-letter
codes where a three-letter code has already been assigned*.

The set of languages "permanently discriminated against" is thus fixed as
the set that made ISO 639-2, but did not make ISO 639-1 before the JAC
decision.
Any new language is free to add both 2-letter and 3-letter code, as was
done for nb and nn, without causing any confusion.

BTW - a formalism: RFC 3066 will never change; RFCs never do.
If we want something different to be Internet standard, we will have to
issue a new version, with a new RFC number.
I don't think people will love us if we do so lightly.



--
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, [log in to unmask]
+47 41 44 29 94
Personal email: [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

April 2021
January 2021
November 2020
June 2020
May 2019
February 2019
September 2018
April 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
May 2016
April 2016
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
May 2013
April 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager