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:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  May 2002

ISOJAC May 2002

Subject:

Many languages - how to code?

From:

John Clews <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sat, 4 May 2002 09:26:05 GMT

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (103 lines)

Keld Simonsen wrote, [re. (iso639.546) some proposals to ietf...]

> I am forwarding this message to the iso639 group as we could also
> consider these additions to ISO 639

Pavla A. Frazier had written:

> Dear IETF Language list serve group,
>
> ISO version 1 and 2 combined include 36 language names for American
> Indian and Alaska Native languages, 9 of which are groupings. These 9
> groups map to 62 individual names in a set of currently used American
> Indian and Alaska Native languages that I am proposing (see below)...
> There are a total of 159 individual language names that I want to
> submit for your consideration....

In passing, I also note that many of the names are listed in the
Ethnologue, published by the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL),
and that 3-letter SIL codes for these have been in well established
use for several decades in many cases, and that these SIL 3-letter
codes are well used by linguists, and in some organisations, Unesco
being one that has cited their use from time to time. Citation:

    Grimes, Barbara F., Pittman, Richard S. and Grimes, Joseph E.
    Ethnologue Languages of the World. - 14th ed.
    SIL International, 2000.

Given Pavla A. Frazier's large number of proposals, in my view the
time is _long_ overdue for ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1 (Language Codes), the ISO
639 Joint Advisory Committee, the ISO/TC37/SC2 Language Codes Task
Force, the E-MELD project, SIL and IETF to really sit down and decide
on a proper strategy for extending the number of languages which can
be coded, and used in ICT systems, without compromising existing use.

Piecemeal or one by one code allocation is just _not_ going to meet
user needs, either in IETF or in ISO, at the rate made by the ISO 639
Joint Advisory Committee.

So far from ISO we have some some proposals, but in no great level of
detail, some codings, though far fewer than have been requested over
several years from various quarters, and several committees and
interest groups connected by email lists. In my more cynical moments
I'm tempted to suggest that there are almost more committees etc.
(see the above list) than there are language codes, certainly in
ISO 639, ISO 639-2 and registrations made by the ISO 639 Maintenance
Agency.

Most of the languages requested to ISO by various groups over the years,
for which there are still no ISO codes _are_ listed by SIL in the
Ethnologue database, which is widely used.

Pavla A. Frazier's request (via Keld Simonsen) is not the first time
that needs for a large number of language codes have not been met by
ISO.

CEN/TC304 (Information and Communications Technologies: European
Localization Requirements) requested several tens of codes from the
ISO 639 Maintenance Agency several years ago, and the requests were
ignored.

Nor have there been codes allocated for many of the same list of
languages by the ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee.

So far there is no mechanism either by ISO, or by IETF, to allow use
of these codes as standard tags. If some mechanism had existed, the
reply to Pavla A. Frazier (and to CEN/TC304) would have been simple:
yes - here's the codes, and here's what you do, in relation to IETF
tags, or in relation to ISO codes.

Currently we could face the possible scenario that there could be
three different schemas in operation: SIL codes, ISO codes, and IETF
tags for the same languages. Hopefully it won't come to that, bu
unless and until a sensible modus operandi is reached, rather than
ignoring the exisitence of the SIL Codes, people are likely to be
ill-served by what is happening at present.

Next week, there is the W3C Internationalization Workshop in Dublin,
followed by the International Unicode Conference. I hope that
those reading this who are involved in Dublin may be able to make use
of this to discuss some of these issues, and hopefully to make some
suggestions that could help to improve the current state of things.

I look forward to any reactions, either this week before the W3C
Internationalization Workshop in Dublin, and the International
Unicode Conference, or during either of those meetings.

Dealing with enabling many more languages to be coded, so that they
can be used by users in ICT systems, is an increasinly urgent need.

Best regards

John Clews

--
John Clews,
Keytempo Limited (Information Management),
8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG
Email: [log in to unmask]
tel: +44 1423 888 432;

Committee Member of ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC22/WG20: Internationalization;
Committee Member of ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1: Language Codes

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