> At 23:53 +0200 1997-06-14, Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no wrote:
> >Imaginary or nonsense languages should be identified (IMHO) using
> >an "x-" prefix - you may care about identifying which one of five
> >imaginary languages you are using at any given moment (I'm VERY sure
> >Tolkien would!), but nobody outside your book should have to worry.
In message <9706151044.AA02290@unicode.org> email@example.com writes:
> There are several books published in Klingon.
John Clews writes:
If user needs revolve around bibliographic requirements [books] it is
worth bringing ISO/TC46/Joint Working Group on language codes into
this discussion: currently nobody from that working group has been
The ISO/TC46/Joint Working Group on language codes is relevant
(a) they deal with bibliographic standards in general, and Michael
points out the need for books above;
(b) nobody in ISO/TC46/Joint Working Group on language codes seems to
have considered this "sub-language" approach necessary, despite
decades of actually using this in bibliographic records used
(c) ISO/TC46/Joint Working Group on language codes is responsible
(as a joint enterprise involving ISO/TC37) for developing ISO 639
in the first place, which RFC 1766 is using as its basis.
Are we in danger of spending too much time on unrequired detail?
A code for Klingon can always be requested in any case from the
ISO/TC46/Joint Working Group on language codes in any case, or from
the ISO 639 maintenance Agency.
-- John Clews (Character Set Development) tel: +44 (0) 1423 888 432 SESAME Computer Projects, 8 Avenue Road Harrogate, HG2 7PG, United Kingdom email: firstname.lastname@example.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:20:34 EDT