Re: Tigrinya, Tonga, Turkish, Yoruba (was: RFC 1766)

Date: Fri Aug 11 2000 - 13:21:03 EDT

On 08/11/2000 10:48:55 AM Mark Leisher wrote:

> >> In the case of Tonga, there may perhaps be a legitimate doubt
> >> to equate
> >> the "to" (Tonga) code with "tog" (Tonga (Nyasa)) or with "ton"
> >> (Tonga Islands)), or with both.
> Peter> This relates to one of the problems with ISO 639-x that I'll be
> Peter> discussing in my presentation. Interesting, essentially the
> Peter> point was raised in the official ballot within TC37/SC2/WG1 on
> Peter> 639-1.
>It isn't a problem. Just use markup to distinguish them :-)

I don't agree that there isn't a problem: the idea that's applied in
RFC1766 (at least, in the draft for the next version) is that (a)
precedence is given first to ISO 639-1 then to ISO 639-2, and (b) you use
the most specific tag that is appropriate to the information. Whether to
= {tog, ton} or to = tog or to = ton makes an important difference as to
how people should tag data. Also, inventing markup to distinguish languages
that aren't adequately distinguished by ISO 639-1 (or 639-2, for that
matter) is not an interoperable solution.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT