We also have consistency issues for him (Himachali) and bih (Bihari): in preparing the draft tables for 639-3, it was assumed that these would be changed to collections. I presented that proposal to the JAC in my Issues to Resolve doc, but there was never any specific JAC action. Now the 639-3 site presents these as collections but they are still presented in 639-2 as individual languages and are not included in 639-5.

These three inconsistencies need to be resolved ASAP. I propose that all three be considered collections, and that the 639-2 and 639-5 tables be updated accordingly.


Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 7:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Land Dayak languages
>
> I see that in a message on 22 Nov. 2006 the following was suggested and
> then later implemented in 639-2:
>
> "ID = day "Dayak" (ItoR section 3.2). The name "Dayak" is an ethnonym
> used
> to refer to minorities of Borneo speaking many different languages from
> several distinct branches of the Western Malayo-Polynesian phylum.
>
> Recommendation: change scope of day to collection; change name to "Land
> Dayak languages"
>
> Action needed if recommendation accepted: change name on 639-2/-3
> sites"
>
> So it looks to me that whoever compiled 639-5 missed this one. It's in
> the
> change notice as name changed to denote collection on 2006-10-31.
>
> Rebecca
>
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008, Peter Constable wrote:
>
> > It would really be helpful to get some comment on this from LOC (the
> > designated RA for 639-5) or from Havard (the project editor for
> > 639-5).
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > > Behalf Of Peter Constable
> > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 10:34 PM
> > > To: [log in to unmask]
> > > Subject: FW: [Ltru] Land Dayak languages
> > >
> > > Here's another report regarding a data issue in 639-5. IIUC, the -5
> > > data was provided by BSI -- I assume it's correct.
> > >
> > > I haven't heard any response on the issue with 'car' other than
> from
> > > Debbie and Joan. These issues should be addressed quickly, I think.
> > >
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of
> > > Doug Ewell
> > > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 5:33 PM
> > > To: LTRU Working Group
> > > Subject: [Ltru] Land Dayak languages
> > >
> > > I found this while preparing the 639-2, 639-3, and 639-5 lists for
> the
> > > new Scope field:
> > >
> > > Code element 'day' ("Land Dayak languages") is present in 639-2,
> but
> > > not
> > > 639-5. I was under the impression that 639-5 would contain all of
> the
> > > 639-2 collection codes and then some.
> > >
> > > Is this another coordination oopsie that needs to be resolved by
> the RA?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Doug Ewell * Arvada, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> > > http://www.ewellic.org
> > > http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> > > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ltru mailing list
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >