Yes, there is such a policy and I don't believe we should revisit it. The
reason is that the Internet RFC says that if there is not a 2-character
code, use the 3-character code. If we later introduce a 2-character code
then there will be 2 codes in use for the same language. It results in
instability and unpredictability in language coding.
Rebecca
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, Milicent K Wewerka wrote:
> It was my understanding that we had a policy that we would not add languages to 639-1 AFTER they had been added to 639-2. We could add languages to 639-1 and 639-2 simultaneously. I thought there was some reason given about the instructions for Internet usage.
>
> Milicent Wewerka
> Library of Congress
>
> >>> Christian Galinski <[log in to unmask]> 12/19/05 5:38 AM >>>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> Tok Pisin:
> given the comparatively low level of development of special purpose
> languages in Tok Pisin it is questionable, whether it should be included
> in 639-1. On the other hand, its status of official language used in
> administration etc. will sooner or later lead to the development of
> SPLs.
> That is, why I could imagine to have a 2-letter code reserved for Tok
> Pisin and put the case on hold for a number of years (e.g. to be
> revisited in 2010).
>
> Tetum:
> same as Tok Pisin.
>
> Palauan:
> same as Tok Pisin.
>
> Best regards
> Have a good New Year!
> Christian
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf
> Of Håvard Hjulstad
> Sent: Montag, 19. Dezember 2005 10:09
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ISO 639 negative ballots
>
>
> Dear JAC members,
>
> On 2005-12-08 I circulated to the JACVOTE list "negative ballots" on Tok
> Pisin, Tetum, and Palauan. On 2005-12-16 Anila sent out a message that
> may be interpreted as a suggestion that there should be normal balloting
> on these items (although the comment mentioned Tok Pisin only
> explicitly). If this is the correct interpretation, I shall circulate
> normal ballots on these three items soon.
>
> (I realize that there may be other interpretations of the recent
> exchange.)
>
> Best regards,
> Håvard
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Håvard Hjulstad
> Standard Norge / Standards Norway
> P.O.Box 242, NO-1326 Lysaker (Norway)
> +47 67838645 (direct) fax: +47 67838601
> <blocked::http://www.standard.no/> http://www.standard.no/
> <blocked::mailto:[log in to unmask]> mailto:[log in to unmask]
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
|