Re: Click letters in ISO 639-3 and Registry

Hugh Paterson wrote:

> I am a little confused with Doug Ewell's email message. My
> understanding is that we are talking about ISO 639-3 Registry,

ISO 639-3 has a data set. BCP 47 has a Language Subtag Registry. We are
talking about proposing changes to the ISO 639-3 data set that would
later be folded back into the BCP 47 Registry. We don't normally have
say over the contents of 639-3, but the RA has indicated willingness to
listen to our proposed spelling corrections.

> but the email references the Ethnologue.

Only in the last sentence, which was a digression (though not clearly
marked as such) and probably not relevant.

> These are two separate data sets and ietf processes only relate to
> ISO 639-3 processes. As a proprietary data set Ethnologue is free to
> encode things as they wish, my earlier post was to point out that the
> two data sets are not consistent with each other and neither is 100%
> accurate.

I know this. That said, you do know where 639-3 originally came from,
right?

> I don't think it makes sense to assume that the ISO 639-3 RA should
> conform to what the Ethnologue has in in its data set just because it
> is "the Ethnologue".

I think it should be apparent that I don't suggest that ISO 639-3 should
conform to Ethnologue's use of ASCII bars and double daggers in place of
real click letters.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org