It could possibly simplify things if we “aren’t allowed to” add new alpha-2 identifiers, as opposed to “aren’t going to” add new alpha-2 identifiers. But “by nature” ISO standards shall be reviewed (at least every five years) and may be changed if the committee members so decide. So whether we “aren’t allowed to” or “aren’t going to", we would have to add “unless something else is decided”.
ISO 639 is going to change. One part of that is the merging of the parts into one. There will one new "linear" document giving all the rules of ISO 639 codes. That document should state something to the effect that the alpha-2 language code “will remain unmodified”, but there will be a need for an “unless” or “except”: Language designations (not identifiers) may need to be changed (obviously); items may be re-classified (e.g. from individual language to macrolanguage); etc. And it is the scope of “etc” that is the tricky part.
So I am basically for. We need a strong rule that would be simple and obvious in cases like “tet”.
Håvard
--------------------
Håvard Hjulstad
(prosjektleder / Project Manager)
Standard Norge / Standards Norway
--------------------
-----Opprinnelig melding-----
Fra: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av Peter Constable
Sendt: 19. april 2011 17:34
Til: [log in to unmask]
Emne: Re: 639-1
I would have no objection to that proposal.
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: 639-1
On 18 Apr 2011, at 20:57, Francois Demay wrote:
> In a way IT IS stabilized.
I mean formal ISO stabilization.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/