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:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC Home

ISOJAC  July 2005

ISOJAC July 2005

Subject:

Re: ISO/DIS 3166-1

From:

"Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:26:15 -0400

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (99 lines)

Dear ISO 639 JAC members:

You may recall the message that Havard sent a few months ago (see
below) about commenting on the draft of ISO 3166 (It appears that it is a 
CD, not DIS according to the information I received from NISO.)

Below are the comments I submitted to NISO as the US member body of
ISO/TC46. I encourage others to do the same. Feel free to use any part of
this message. If some of you want to review the details of what was
included in the draft as "official languages" that would be helpful. I did
not do that.

From [log in to unmask] Thu Jul 21 11:24:14 2005
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:13:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: Rebecca S. Guenther <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Cc: [log in to unmask]
Subject: ISO/DIS 3166-1 

I have some comments on ISO 3166 part 1 (Country codes) on behalf of the
ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee. I guess the best thing would be to
submit them as US comments. Others from our committee may submit these to
their member bodies (thanks to Havard Hjulstad for pointing this out).

Comments: Tables 9 and 10 of ISO CD 3166-1, include (as normative
information) language identifiers for "official languages". It is not
desirable to standardize this information in this way. The notion of
"official language" is not discussed in the document. The concepts related
to "language status" vary a lot between countries that have somehow
legalized the issue, and the actual implication of status as "official
language" or "national language" or "recognized minority language" etc.
(there are a lot more terms in circulation) varies a lot and may be of
great importance in many cases. Members of the ISO 639 Joint Advisory
Committee have also found errors in the tables, to be submitted as they
are found.
 
It is recommended that information (be it indeed right or wrong) about
"official languages" should be removed from ISO 3166-1, or at least
alternatively moved from the normative part to an informative annex.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^  Rebecca S. Guenther                                   ^^
^^  Chair, ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee/ISO 639-2     ^^
^^    Registration Authority                              ^^
^^  Senior Networking and Standards Specialist            ^^
^^  Library of Congress                                   ^^
^^  Washington, DC 20540-4402                             ^^
^^  (202) 707-5092 (voice)    (202) 707-0115 (FAX)        ^^
^^  [log in to unmask]                                          ^^
^^                                                        ^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

On Thu, 21 Apr 2005, [iso-8859-1] Håvard  Hjulstad wrote:

> Dear members of ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1 (language coding),
>  
> As convener of WG1 I would like to draw your attention to ISO/DIS 3166-1
> "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -
> Part 1: Country codes". DIS voting started on 2005-02-24 and terminates on
> 2005-07-24. It is ISO/TC46 that is responsible for the document.
>  
> >From a language coding point of view it is reason to look at the document,
> and possibly to try to influence national commenting and voting.
>  
> In particular you should take a look at the tables in chapter 9 and 10.
> These tables include (as normative information) language identifiers for
> "official languages". Personally I find it highly questionable that ISO
> "standardizes" this information. The notion of "official language" is not
> discussed in the document. The concepts related to "language status" vary a
> lot between countries that have somehow legalized the issue, and the actual
> implication of status as "official language" or "national language" or
> "recognized minority language" etc. (there are a lot more terms in
> circulation) varies a lot and may be of great importance in many cases. I
> have also detected errors in the tables (which I have included in the
> comments that our National Member Body plans to submit). Other will probably
> find more errors.
>  
> I think "language coding people" should comment on the document through our
> National Member Bodies. My personal opinion is that information (be it
> indeed right or wrong) about "official languages" should be removed from ISO
> 3166-1, alternatively moved from the normative part to an informative annex.
> There is of course no need for TC37/SC2/WG1 to agree in any way on this;
> each member does as he/she thinks is best.
>  
> Best regards,
> Håvard Hjulstad
> (convener TC37/SC2/WG1)
>  
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Håvard Hjulstad
> Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>   P.O.Box 242, NO-1326 Lysaker (Norway)
>   +47 67838645 (direct)   fax: +47 67838601
> http://www.standard.no/ <http://www.standard.no/> 
> mailto:[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>  
> 

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