> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
> Behalf Of Michael Everson

> >The ballot on "Blissymbols" is ongoing.
> When was it issued, and when does it end?

It was issued late last week. It ends after every JAC member has submitted their ballot.

> >  One of the questions on the ballot is:
> >            ___ I am in favour of the indigenous
> >name "<a symbol like a reversed Z>".
> >
> An odd question. How can one be "in favour of"
> the name. Does this mean "in favour of the
> transcription"?

No; it means "in favour of adopting the string indicated as the value for the "indigenous name" field in ISO 639 tables. (These are not currently published.)

> >Peter Constable commented:
> >
> >That's not a name but a description of a name.
> ASCII does not have symbol like a reversed Z in it.

If the values recorded for indigenous name are ASCII strings, then the only reasonable non-null value in this case is "[no ASCII representation]".

If the values recorded are strings using any Latin characters in ISO 10646, then if there is some Latin approximation that could be used; otherwise, the only reasonable non-null value would be "[no representation in ISO 10646 Latin characters]". (Similar if the character inventory is ISO 8859-1.)

If the values can be in the indigenous script, then at present the only reasonable non-null value would be "[no representation is ISO 10646 characters]".

That's how things seem to me. I think it's acceptable to leave this field empty, as Rebecca suggests.