The first would be my inclination as well.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Rebecca S. Guenther
> Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 2:35 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Bihari and Himachali
> I would vote for the first. After doing all the analysis that has been
> done over the last few years as a result of the development of 639-3 we
> have discovered some anomalies and inconsistencies. I wouldn't favor
> excluding it from 639-1. I don't mind the third one, but I agree the
> fourth one is not desirable.
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Peter Constable wrote:
> > > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> > > Behalf Of Milicent K Wewerka
> > > I thought we had resolved the issues with Bihari and Himachali some
> > > time
> > > ago. We were going to treat them as collective entities.
> > > would be equivalent to Western Pahari. The only peculiarity for
> > > is that it is included in ISO639-1 which doesn't include collective
> > > terms.
> > That is, isn't *designed* and intended to include collections. We
> can't really ignore what Bihari really is. It seems to me our options
> > - we say that bh/bih really is a collection and that 639-1 has that
> anomalous case, or
> > - we say that Bihari is a collection and exclude it from 639-1 as
> being out of scope for that code, or
> > - we use the macrolanguage escape hatch to say that in 639-1
> applications it is considered an individual language while in 639-2/-3
> applications it is considered multiple language, or
> > - we can ignore the issue and leave it unresolved
> > I don't like the last of these: it just passes the problem of
> inconsistency in our code set on to the users of our standards.
> > Peter