[log in to unmask]">

I still haven’t heard any response from Rebecca or Joan on these. Now we also have a new set of actions wrt Aramaic – clearly Joan is on board, but I don’t know if others are. We need to bring these issues to closure, please.

 

Peter

 


From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 3:17 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: action on items

 

In that case, do Rebecca and Joan have a clear understanding of action items?

 

Malay: MARC needs to adjust encompassed languages to those encompassed by 639 macrolanguage mappings

 

Occitan:

- ISO 639-3: The IDs auv, gsc, lms, lnc and prv will remain defined with their current meanings, but these will be deprecated, they will be documented as having been merged into oci, and users will be advised to use that ID. Change the scope of oci from M to I.

 

- Both 639-2 and 639-3: Change names for oci from “Occitan (post 1500); Provençal” to “Occitan (post 1500)”. Change names for pro from “Old Provençal (to 1500)” to “Old Occitan (to 1500)” (or, inverted: “Occitan, Old (to 1500)”).

 

 

Syriac: no action req’d for 639; MARC needs to distinguish syr and syc

 

 

And we have an open issue wrt Malay and Swahili: does 639-2 normalize its names to that of 639-3, i.e. “Malay (macrolanguage)” and “Swahili (macrolanguage)” (and the French equivalents)?

 

We also need closure on Tibetan and Aramaic, but I’ll leave those for a separate msg.

 

 

Peter

 


From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:32 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: action on items

 

I think you are now hearing a unanimous "No objection to the recommendations"!

 

Håvard

 

--------------------

Håvard Hjulstad

  Standard Norge / Standards Norway

  [log in to unmask]

--------------------

 

 


From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Peter Constable
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 7:14 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: action on items

It’s been a week since I wrote asking for progress. Only Joan and Milicent have commented on the mail I sent. If you don’t have any comments and no objections, then a simple “No objection to the recommendations” would allow us to make progress.

 

 

Thanks

Peter