I realize now that I sent this message AFTER I voted for Ainu! That wasn't
quite appropriate. I do think we need to look into the how many documents
issue before we finalize this one.
On Tue, 16 Nov 2004, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote:
> Sorry that it took me so long to respond to this topic.
> Yes, the intention was for documents IN the language, not about the
> language. I would assume by what was submitted, that 1274 is the number of
> documents at that institution, but it is probably the case that the
> submitter did not know that we make the distinction between "in" and
> "about". We would need to go back to the submitter and ask for
> clarification to determine whether the requirements are met.
> And in our very first JAC meeting we discussed what "document" means. It
> is any resource that uses written or spoken language, not only written text.
> On Mon, 1 Nov 2004, Peter Constable wrote:
> > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > Behalf Of
> > > Milicent K Wewerka
> > > It was always my understanding that the requirement means documents IN
> > > the language.
> > (Havard had a similar reply.)
> > OK, that's what I thought. So, in the case of the request for Ainu, it
> > wasn't clear to me from the information provided whether the criterion
> > is met. I see the following:
> > ref_where_found_2 = The Ainu people did not have a character. trans_lit
> > = evidence = National Diet Library(1274)
> > So, "The Ainu people did not have a character" indicates there are no
> > documents written in an orthography. Does the following bit, "trans_lit
> > = evidence = National Diet Library(1274)," mean that there are 1274
> > documents in the National Diet Library that are written in some form of
> > transcription?
> > Peter
> > Peter Constable
> > Globalization Infrastructure and Font Technologies
> > Microsoft Windows Division