LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ISOJAC Archives


ISOJAC Archives

ISOJAC Archives


[email protected]


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  March 2008

ISOJAC March 2008

Subject:

Re: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)

From:

Eeva Murtomaa <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Thu, 20 Mar 2008 15:48:29 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (156 lines)

Agree
Eeva M.

Peter Constable wrote:
> I also agree.
> 
>  
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On 
> Behalf Of *Joan Spanne
> *Sent:* Wednesday, March 19, 2008 11:42 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask]
> *Subject:* Re: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Hello All,
> 
> Having listened in on much of the recent IETF discussion regarding the 
> issues, I also am in favor of the expanded meaning.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Joan
> 
> *christian <[log in to unmask]>*
> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 2008-03-19 09:09 AM
> 
> Please respond to
> ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 	
> 
> To
> 
> 	
> 
> [log in to unmask]
> 
> cc
> 
> 	
> 
> Subject
> 
> 	
> 
> Re: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
> 
>  
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dear colleagues,
> 
> This is so obvious and necessary that I can only be in favour of adding this
> to the codes.
> 
> Best regards
> Christian
> 
> --------------------------------------------------
> Dr. Christian Galinski, Director
> Infoterm - International Information
> Centre for Terminology
> Mariahilfer Strasse 123/3,
> A-1060 Vienna, Austria
> T:+43-664-344 6181 - F:+43-1-524 0606-99
> [log in to unmask] - http://www.infoterm.info
> --------------------------------------------------
> Founded in 1971 by UNESCO to promote and organize
> co-operation in the field of terminology worldwide
> __________________________________________________
> THIS E-MAIL HAS BEEN SCANNED FOR ALL KNOWN VIRUSES
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
> Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Mittwoch, 19. März 2008 14:12
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request (fwd)
> 
> I am in favor of adding to the code for "No linguistic content" the term
> "Not applicable". See below.
> 
> We have said in the past that we don't need to ballot the addition of
> alternative names in ISO 639-2 unless it is controversial. So unless I
> hear objections, I will add it.
> 
> Rebecca
> 
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2008 17:30:03 -0400
> From: NDMSO <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
> Subject: ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request
> 
> 
> ISO 639-2 Language Code Change Request.
> 
> English name of Language:   No Linguistic Content
> French name of Language:   Pas de contenu linguistique
> iso_639_2_b:   zxx
> iso_639_2_t:   zxx
> 
> change_requested:  I would like to request that the semantic of this tag
> be broadened to \"Not applicable.\" When the original use case for this
> tag was being discussed in the IETF LTRU working group, we talked about
> whether it should be coded as \"not applicable\" or \"no linguistic
> content.\"
> 
> In the context of a standard for language identification, I always thought
> it was more appropriate to indicate that human language identification was
> \"not applicable\" to the content being described, rather than declare
> something that couldn\'t be described with an ISO language tag as having
> no linguistic value. There have been several debates about this tag since
> its creation relating to specific use cases.
> 
> It has become clear that in most of the use cases designed to be served by
> this tag, it is more accurate to indicate that language identification is
> not applicable to the text. Some of these scenarios include code snippets
> found in a technical tutorial, which clearly have some linguistic value,
> but do not merit a ISO 639-2 language tag; invoice or part numbers that
> would not be subject to translation; and my original use case, which was
> identifying the \"audio language\" of a silent film.
> 
> I also think this broadening will help accessibility. Code snippets in a
> technical tutorial, for example, are designed to be read by humans, not
> machines. But if I were creating a screenreader, I would probably tell it
> to ignore something tagged as \"no linguistic content.\" This might make
> these technical tutorials rather confusing for my blind programmer
> friends.
> 
> I am writing to you at the request of participants on the IETF Languages
> list who believe this change would be an improvement and does not narrow the
> original semantic.
> Submitter's name:   Karen Broome
> Submitter's email :   [log in to unmask]
> Submitter's status :  I work on metadata standards, including language
> coding issues, for Sony Pictures Entertainment and serve on the IETF LTRU
> working group. I am also affiliated with SMPTE (the Society of Motion
> Picture and Television Engineers) where accurate identification of dubbed
> and subtitled language is critical.
> 

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