At 00:04 +0000 2001-03-07, John Clews wrote:

>What would work of course, would be for RFC 3066 to refer to the
>2-letter codes in ISO 639-1 _at_the_time_of_publication_ being in
>scope, while any additions to ISO 639-1 _after_the_time_of_publication_
>would be out of scope, and not intended to be used in implementing
>RFC 3066.

But we don't have to do this, because all this was discussed in
Washington, the pros and cons weighed and considered, and a decision
was made. It was the right decision, and your suggestion simply gives
people more work tracking things that they shouldn't have to do, and
don't have to do given the JAC resolution.

>Any additions to ISO 639-1, for whatever reason, could be
>explicitly flagged in any ISO documentation (and if necessary in any
>IANA documentation by the IANA Registration authority) that these
>later 2-letter codes should NOT be used in relation to implementing
>RFC 3066.

I find this really far too untidy.

>That could satisfy both needs expressed so far (for stability, and
>for potential extendibility).
>Any comments on that?

Yes. You have not shown a single concrete "need for potential
extendibility". Whereas the internet community has 1,300,000,000+ web
pages tagged or taggable, and requiring stability.

Note, please, that it is mostly minority languages which may
currently have 639-2 codes but not 639-1 codes. The suggestion that
some of them might be placed in a position where there was ambiguity
places them at a serious disadvantage in my view. The JAC decision
forestalls that.

The JAC decision ***IS*** the compromise that "makes things work", John.
Michael Everson  **  Everson Gunn Teoranta  **
15 Port Chaeimhghein Íochtarach; Baile Átha Cliath 2; Éire/Ireland
Mob +353 86 807 9169 ** Fax +353 1 478 2597 ** Vox +353 1 478 2597
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn;  Baile an Bhóthair;  Co. Átha Cliath; Éire