We need to be conservative about deprecating an existing code. I would
want to be absolutely sure that there are no other possible languages that
would fit into the group code. We need to be concerned not only about
living languages but other languages that may have existed in the past
that fit into the group code and would have no place if it were
deprecated. My recollection is that Millie had sent some information to
Havard when this was first brought up about some other possible languages
falling under Sorbian languages.

This also is not quite the same situation as Norwegian where we would
continue to use the group code in MARC. That was a unique situation. We
could deprecate the group code for use in MARC, but again only if we were
absolutely certain that there were no other languages that would fall into
that code.

Rebecca

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003, Michael Everson wrote:

> At 07:35 -0400 2003-07-22, Milicent K Wewerka wrote:
> >The original ballot message from Havard stated:
> >
> >"Some of the comments have been relating to the issue of retaining "wen" as a
> >group identifier for Sorbian (or as a rest group identifier for "other
> >Sorbian languages"). Evidence has been presented in favour of retaining the
> >group identifier, and no proposal will be made to deprecate it."
>
> What possible value does it have? If we have a code each for Upper
> and Lower Sorbian, why retain a code for the pair?
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
>