Print

Print


Havard:

Thank you very much for these comments. We will adjust the document, and
will also reorganize it as suggested by John Clews (give the paragraphs
numbers). If anyone can tell me where the extraneous @ marks came from,
let me know. I see them in the ASCII text, but they do not appear in my
Word document.

I have only included the portions of Havard's message that I have comments
on.


On Thu, 2 Mar 2000, [iso-8859-1] Håvard Hjulstad wrote:

>                                 [H.Hjulstad:]  This needs to be modified!
> Any item that is already in 639-2 at the point of "freezing" 639-1, may not
> be added in 639-1. However, for items that are new to both parts, may be
> considered for inclusion in both parts, or in 639-2 only. New items that
> have been accepted in 639-2, may not AT A LATER DATE be accepted also in
> 639-1. The point in time of this "freezing" should NOT be at the approval of
> the DIS, but at the approval of the IS (in practise FDIS), since we don't
> know now how many DISes we might need and how many changes there will be. I
> am not quite certain that the whole issue of "freezing" 639-1 is finalized!

You're absolutely right about all these points. We got a little mixed up.

>                                 [H.Hjulstad:]  There is a misunderstanding
> (or bad wording) here. The phrase "additional names in indigenous languages"
> hardly makes sense. May be the following wording: "A section will be added
> to submit information on the indigenous name of the language".

Sounds fine.

>                                 [H.Hjulstad:]  Yes, but I am not sure that
> "discontinued" is the best word. Should we say "deprecated"? Would we also
> regard the old symbols "iw" (= he), "in" (= id), and "ji" (= yi) as
> "deprecated" in more or less the same way, and threat them in a table note?

Deprecated is okay. I would say those old symbols are more or less the
same. I'm not sure what you mean here (obviously some sort of error)
"threat them in a table note".

On specific codes: we can add the information about 1) what the chosen
code is for those that Havard came back with after the meeting and 2)
which ones are already in 639-2. 

> > *     Ruthenian; Rusyn: defer for ISO 639-2 / reject for ISO 639-1
>                                 [H.Hjulstad:]  My notes differ from this. In
> my notes it is "deferred" for both parts of the standard. It may not make
> that much difference, but it should be clarified. New vote?

What do others have in their notes?

> >                       2.      Resolution: the JAC will replace the working
> > group when ISO 639-1 is published.  Approval may be needed from TC37 and
> > TC46.
>                                 [H.Hjulstad:]  Is there something wrong
> here? What is "Joint Working Group for ISO 639 1988"??? ISO/TC37/SC2/WG1 is
> not a JWG as far as I know, and it produced ISO/DIS 639-1. However, the
> issue may be that there "in theory" still exists a Advisory Committee to
> 639:1988.
> 
We were mistaken. It should have said Advisory Committee. Do you think
this needs to be included at all?

Anything else I haven't responded to here will be changed as suggested.

Rebecca