Re: Date of deprecation

Addison Phillips <addison dot phillips at quest dot com> wrote:

>>> One of our chairs proposed to prepare the LTRU registry as far
>>> as possible for this case.  IMHO a good idea, of course not for
>>> what you plan to publish tomorrow.
>>
>> I missed something there.  Did Randy or Martin say something about
>> working on the registry itself?
>
> To prepare the 3066bis regime to handle ISO 639-3 as much as possible
> is what I believe Frank means.

and Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> What I meant was Randy's (hat off) question...
>
> | If we already have a good idea how the ISO specifications
> | will look, wouldn't it make sense to ensure that 3066bis
> | works correctly for those cases, so we don't have to bother
> | doing a 3066ter?
>
> | I think it would be really nice if we could put in text now
> | that would not need revision later.  It sounds like all that
> | is needed is text that spells out precisely when using the
> | macro-language code is required.

Ah, you are right.  Technically that's preparing the draft, not the
registry per se, which is why I missed something.

But I completely agree, and think we should include as much information
as we can -- depending on how much confidence we have in the stability
of the 639-3 draft between now and the time it's published -- about how
extlangs will work, and which types of 639-3 codes will be primary
language subtags and which will be extlangs.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/