I find myself in a quandary* over the Hyam
and Gong requests.
The requesters claimed to have 50 docs for
Hyam, but not Gong; it’s evident that they are requesting these to
facilitate software localization. Applying the current rules strictly, I should
probably vote in favour of Hyam but against Gong. I feel both should have an
alpha-3 (but not alpha-2), but there are alpha-3 IDs for both in 639-3, and it’s
unclear to me if those that have the greatest concern for the future of 639-2
would consider it appropriate to include these. At this point, I feel my
choices are one of the following:
* “In a quandary” is an apparently-obsolete
expression replaced by the modern anomaly “conflicted”, which I
cannot bring myself to use.
Peter
From: ISO JAC Voting
Member List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:46
AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [JACVOTE] ISO 639 ballot
2006-4 - Hyam; Ham; Jaba
Dear JAC voting members,
ISO 639 ballot 2006-4: Hyam; Ham; Jaba
Please see original submission in the enclosed message. I am
sorry that the issue has been on by desk too long before submitting a ballot.
During the discussion none of the members presented
arguments against the inclusion of this item in the alpha-3 table of ISO 639-2.
It is already in ISO 639-3.
Please vote by 14 April 2006.
Submitted by:
(A) Inclusion:
(1)
___ I am in favour of including "Hyam; Ham; Jaba"
in ISO 639-2.
___ I am opposed to including "Hyam; Ham; Jaba" in
ISO 639-2.
[Inclusion in the alpha-2 code is not balloted.]
(B) Identifier:
[Since the item is already in ISO 639-3, the identifier
"jab" should be retained.]
(C) Names:
(2)
___ I am in favour of the English names "Hyam; Ham;
Jaba".
___ I am opposed to the English names "Hyam; Ham;
Jaba".
(3)
___ I am in favour of the French names "hyam; ham;
jaba".
___ I am opposed to the French names "hyam; ham;
jaba".
(4)
___ I am in favour of the indigenous names "Hyam;
Ham; Jaba".
___ I am opposed to the indigenous names "Hyam;
Ham; Jaba".
(D) Comments: