> Some of the comments have been relating to the issue of retaining "wen"
as a
> group identifier for Sorbian (or as a rest group identifier for "other
> Sorbian languages"). Evidence has been presented in favour of retaining
> group identifier, and no proposal will be made to deprecate it.

The only issue I see in retaining the group identifier is clarifying the
denotation. There is a current anomoly in the the text of the standard kind
of suggests that the denotation of a collective excludes any varieties that
have their own identifier. That would mean that "wen" has a null denotation
(unless we say it still includes historic varieties). Also, I have pointed
out in the past that there is a problem with collective categories that
have an "other xxx languages" denotation in that (in the general case) when
a member variety of the collection is assigned its own identifier, then by
these rules (the collection excludes varieties with their own ID) existing
data in that member variety that was tagged using the collective ID is now
incorrectly tagged. If the collection was inclusive, the existing data
would be correctly but sub-optimally tagged; by having the category be
exclusive, the existing data becomes incorrectly tagged. (And there's
probably nothing in most systems to advise anyone that there is now
incorrectly tagged data.)

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485