At 23:30 +0200 2002-05-07, Keld Jørn Simonsen wrote:
>On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 09:21:32PM +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
>> That is NOT what the JAC said it would do. The JAC said they would do
>> the following:
>> o New codes will no longer be added to ISO 639-1 after the publication
>> of a revised standard unless they are also added to ISO 639-2.
>I think this is a storm in a glass of water: The rule says that there
>may be additions to ISO 639-1 but only if the language is also encoded
>in ISO 639-2. What is your problem with stability here, Michael?
>For Internet purposes I cannot see a problem whatsoever.
It is being suggested that this rule could be changed, that is my
problem. If Hawaiiian has now only a 3-letter code, then the rule
said a two-letter code wouldn't be added for it. That would mean that
people could safely tag Hawaiian with three letters. The rule also
says that for future languages, both a two-letter and a three-letter
code can be added at the same time.
This is to support the internet application of language tagging,
where we have a legacy of two-letter codes for Danish and English,
but also now a set of three-letter codes which are currently being
used. So far, codes are all unique. Changing this rule would
introduce ambiguity for e.g. Hawai'ian.
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com