I have no problem with the JAC just balloting--and approving--it for 639-2, in which case it is automatically added to 639-3. I had said as much during that teleconference, that if an identifier is going to be considered for 639-2, it should just go through the existing 639-2 process of JAC discussion and balloting, and if approved, it enters both parts. If not approved, then it could be considered for 639-3, if warranted. The exceptions to this would be 1) it is a collective code element, and does not get included in Part 3 2) it causes a conflict with something in Part 3, in which case I alert the JAC to that problem during the discussion phase, and specific issues are addressed I see no problem with Blissymbols... Vote: yes -Joan "Rebecca S. Guenther" <[log in to unmask]> Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> 2007-07-31 03:14 PM Please respond to ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> To [log in to unmask] cc Subject Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion Since this was in the pipeline for ISO 639-2, shouldn't it have been considered in the same for 639-3? To clarify the process... If we get a request for 639-2, first we see if it's in 639-3 and propose it for 639-2 if it meets the criteria. If it is requested for 639-2 and it isn't in 639-3, it then gets requested for both, (assuming it meets the criteria)? It probably should have been requested for 639-3 during the last revision period since it was submitted in 2006, but I guess it looks like it fell between the cracks. Rebecca On Tue, 31 Jul 2007, Joan Spanne wrote: > The process to submit a request for 639-3 starts with a form: > > (change request type 5) > and continues with another form (since this is for a new language, not a > change to an existing code element) > > > The next round of requests will be up for formal consideration Sept - Dec. > and the outcomes will be announced in January 2008. So this will not > enable you to make your announcement, Michael. My apologies. > > -Joan > > > > H�vard Hjulstad <[log in to unmask]> > Sent by: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> > 2007-07-31 11:17 AM > Please respond to > ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee <[log in to unmask]> > > > To > [log in to unmask] > cc > > Subject > Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - Discussion > > > > > > > I am not at home and close to my papers, but from what I can see from > email exchanges you are indeed right that the item was discussed (with no > negative submissions, as far as I can see), and that no ballot has been > circulated. > However, we cannot process this item for ISO 639-2 without consideration > for ISO 639-3. It should indeed be processed for ISO 639-3 now. > Subsequently we should consider whether encoding in ISO 639-2 would also > be needed. > What is the status in 639-3? I don't see that from where I am sitting > right now. > Best regards, > H�vard > > -------------------- > H�vard Hjulstad > Standard Norge / Standards Norway > [log in to unmask] > -------------------- > > -----Original Message----- > From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf > Of Michael Everson > Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 3:47 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: ISO 639-2 proposal: Blissymbols; Blissymbolics; Bliss - > Discussion > > At 09:39 -0400 2007-07-31, Rebecca S. Guenther wrote: > >It looks like this never went out for a vote. Maybe Havard can tell us > >its status. > > There was no objection raised in any previous discussion. There was some > request for clarification which was provided. > > It would be lovely if I could inform the Bliss group here in Dundee that > "zbl" is approved for Blissymbols. > -- > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com >