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:

The returning 639-1 freeze issue

From:

Håvard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Wed, 8 May 2002 12:11:37 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (52 lines)

Once again we have had the "tempest in a teacup" discussion about ISO 639
and its development. Sometimes the discussion is fun, sometimes it is just
ridiculous.

The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee (JAC) does
NOT have plans to alter the rule that states that no alpha-2 language
identifiers will be added if an alpha-3 identifier already exists. For some
of our users that rule is of great importance; although it is a problem for
other users. In the lifetime of ISO 639 (first edition published 1988) uses
and users have changed. There is no reason to expect that the next 14 years
will involve fewer changes. Decisions were made in 1988 that are overruled
by decisions today. Decisions will be made 14 years from now that will
overrule today's decisions. It doesn't take a prophet to predict that; and
it makes no difference how much Michael objects.

No, Michael, I am not going to propose to change JAC's policy now. I have
trust in the committee to make the right decisions. We recently had a
proposal to add an alpha-2 identifier for one language that already has an
alpha-3 identifier. The proposer submitted some information/opinions in
support of the proposal. As acting chairman of the JAC I found it consistent
with a proper procedure to circulate the proposal to the committee. The
feedback from the committee was clear: No, this is not sufficient to change
our "freeze" rule. So the process worked; there is nothing to worry about.

But how can I say that 13 years from now, when technology has changed, the
JAC has changed, the IETF language tag reviewer has changed, that there
still is no reason to change alpha-2 registration rules?

Right now there seems to be a problem for some of ISO 639 users that they
need rules to avoid synonyms. If one language has already been tagged "de",
it causes a problem if the same language in another document is tagged "deu"
or "ger". Other users don't have this problem. Their systems allow synonyms.
Even "near synonyms" may be built into the system, allowing e.g. "no",
"nor", "nb", "nob", "nn", "nno" (Norwegian in various forms) to be used
properly.

Other users have the problem that their system allows only alpha-2
identifiers for reason of space.

I hope that the "freeze" discussions give some new users the understanding
that it might be a good idea to build into their systems features like
"synonyms", "near synonyms", and "hierarchies". And at the same time I hope
that no new implementations will allow alpha-2 language identifiers only.
Language identification will need variable-length strings.

ISO/TC37 plans to continue its work with ISO 639, language identifiers, and
language identification mechanisms. We will listen to the needs of all
users, and we will seek cooperation with all relevant expertise.

Håvard Hjulstad mailto:[log in to unmask]
http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/

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