 |
 |
> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of John Clews > I'm more and more inclining to the simple view (hopefully not a simplistic > vews) that > (a) if a language entity exists in ISO 639-3, there needs to be no special > effort to add it to ISO 639-2; Well, ISO 639-2 still has criteria for inclusion that a requester would need to show are met. > and > (b) if the current specifications of a user group is currently limited to > ISO 639-2, they should change their specifications so that it allows use > of 3-letter codes from either ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3, as there is no clash > between them. An example of such current specifications which might need a > simple amendment could be > (1) the MARC21 codes, and > (2) ISO 3066 or its successor/replacement. For (2), do you mean RFC 3066? If so, it has already been anticipated that a revision will be drafted, but we need to wait for ISO 639-3 to get published first. (Work *could* be begun prior to publication, but there is another revision that has dragged out for over a year now, and we need to let that get finished -- destabilizing the draft by introducing further changes as this stage would not be a good thing, I think.) Peter Constable