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
>
>
>
> Hεvard  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,
> Hεvard
>
> --------------------
> Hεvard 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
>