From: Mark Davis (email@example.com)
Date: Sun Feb 01 2009 - 18:32:59 CST
We have that page on the agenda for the editorial committee.
It and the similar country codes page may no longer be that useful -
especially now that BCP 47 provides a reliable way to get at
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 14:14, Doug Ewell <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
> Codes that are withdrawn from a standard in the ISO 639 family are not
>>> still present in the standard. See the official text file provided by ISO
>>> 639-2/RA at:
>> They may not be listed there, but they are still defined with a stable
>> encoding -- my point being, those IDs won't get re-defined.
> I understand and applaud that they won't get redefined. My point is that
> they don't appear in the publicly available ISO 639 code lists, even as
> non-preferred alternatives.
> They aren't still supported by the ISO 639 authorities.
>> I'm not sure what "still supported by the ISO 639 authorities" means. They
>> are still defined with stable semantics but are deprecated.
> I'm taking my understanding of "deprecated" from Unicode. A deprecated
> character is still in the standard, still defined with all of its
> properties, but there is an additional property that says, in essence,
> "Don't use this character; solve your problem with a different character or
> in a different way." This isn't the same as removing the character from the
> standard, whether or not the code point is reserved.
> My understanding of ISO 639-1 was that codes like 'in' and 'iw' and 'ji'
> and 'jw' were actually withdrawn from the standard, meaning that they didn't
> exist in the standard any more, regardless of whether there was a pledge not
> to revive them later. There are other deprecated codes in ISO 639-1, 'mo'
> and 'sh', which are not listed on the change page as "withdrawn," but which
> still do not appear in the online code lists. I would have regarded these
> as no longer belonging to the standard either.
> If I have this terminology wrong, then I apologize to Philippe for the
> misinformation -- but I still contend that the Unicode organization, which
> has its own strong recommendations about deprecated characters, should not
> be encouraging people to use deprecated codes from other standards by
> Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages ˆ
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 01 2009 - 18:36:10 CST