Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to
change parts of the policy to edit <
directly
to address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com>om>:
On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living
languages there is no
need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a
need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other
languages with potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third
majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3
code the standard answer
is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and
widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we
would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a
non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom