Print

Print


Just one small clarification.

And one other thing.

Håvard

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Håvard Hjulstad           mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Rådet for teknisk terminologi
  (Norwegian Council for Technical Terminology)
  Postboks 41 Blindern
  NO-0313  Oslo, Norway
  (besøksadresse/visiting address: Forskningsveien 3 B)
  tel: +47-23198040   faks: +47-23198041
  http://www.rtt.org/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rebecca S. Guenther [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2000 3:02 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Resolutions
> 
> 
> >                                 [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" (=3D he), "in" (=3D id), and "ji" (=3D 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".
> 
        [H.Hjulstad:]  Delethe te "h" in "threat" and I tink you will geth
my meaning ...



> > >                       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?
        [H.Hjulstad:]  I don't think there is any need to go into details,
just to mention that the migration from the old committee structure to the
new one was discussed.