> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Anila
> I agree
> with Rebecca ont the fact that none of us would have the time to go through
> the whole standard and determine where notes are need. But I don't think
> that this should be discouraging and if it is to be done there should be
> once a starting point.
Just to clarify what I had in mind in my original message, I was not assuming that informative notes would have to be prepared for all entries that might need them before any could be published. That would, of course, be a possible way to proceed. I agree with Anila, though, that it would be acceptable and beneficial to users if we added individual annotations to our tables as needs for clarification are identified.
I would consider these to be informative, not normative, annotations, and so I don't think there would be a need to align a particular set of them with a particular published version of the standard(s). E.g. in the draft for 639-3, I put in wording that would give leeway to the RA to provide additional information of this sort in clause 4.3:
"To facilitate unambiguous documentation of the intended denotation of each identifier, the Registration Authority... may provide additional informative information regarding any given language..."