I accept the argument below. However, take a look at the following: Walloon
recently got an alpha-2 and an alpha-3 identifier. That was ok, because they
didn't have an alpha-3 identifier to begin with. Hawaiian on the other hand
is in the "unfortunate" situation of already having an alpha-3 identifier,
so they cannot get an alpha-2 identifier. This is NOT logical.
The reason for "freezing" was that there is this principle of "alpha-2 if
exists - alpha-3 otherwise" in parts of industry (WHO IS IMPORTANT! I am not
questioning that!). But we have already accepted, and we have presented as a
fact, that "synonym" language identifiers have to be accepted, and that
there will be more of them as further work with (new parts of) 639 moves
along. The principle needs (over time) to be changed from "alpha-2 if
exists - alpha-3 otherwise" to "synonyms allowed".
We have other principles too. All of them need to be taken into
consideration in each case.
Next time a similar case comes up, I will initiate the discussion in a
similar manner. Then Michael is probably going to scream. An we will weigh
the scream (and the underlying argument, which I accept) against other
arguments and principles. And then we will vote.
Because there is one detail in Michael's reasoning that I do NOT accept: He
wants to sanctify one principle beyond the democratic process. He doesn't
even want a ballot. I am sure that the balloting members are able to apply
all relevant principles and cast their votes accordingly.
Do we have any discussion on the merit of adding an alpha-2 identifier for
Hawaiian? Think of it as follows: Would we have included an alpha-2
identifier if they didn't have an alpha-3 identifier? If not, we don't have
a problem at all. If the answer would have been yes, we do need to deal with
it, weighing all arguments in a proper manner.
Håvard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask]
NO-1430 Ås, Norway
tel: +47-64944233 & +47-64963684
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Rebecca S. Guenther
Sent: 24. april 2002 19:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: New ISO 639-1 identifier ? - Hawaiian
I agree with Michael's reasoning here. A principle may not be a law, but
what's the point of establishing principles if you don't attempt to honor
them. I see no reason not to stand by this principle here.
On Wed, 24 Apr 2002, Michael Everson wrote:
> At 16:02 +0200 2002-04-24, Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
> >I also know the principle ...! I also know that it is a principle, and
> As IETF Language Tag Reviewer, I formally object to this. It is an
> agreement made by the JAC while RFC 3066 was being revised. The
> agreement was to ensure internet stability for language tagging.
> The JAC must NOT go back on its promise. This is a serious matter of
> >QUESTION: Is anyone in favour of adding an alpha-2 identifier for
> >If I don't get any feedback in favour of this within the next week, I
> >send out a ballot with a recommendation to vote "no".
> Certainly not. It violates the rules of the JAC. That answer should
> be given to the Hawai'ians. No ballot should be sent out.
> Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com