Hoi, The standards did not change. The standard that gave the English language the code en has been around since 2002. People chose to ignore the standard and abused codes like als in stead of gsw, they ignored the fact that the best common practice states that you should not mix the codes with invented codes. Using codes that are absolutely wrong should not be used for any new projects. These projects should be renamed. Renaming and leaving a redirect in place is indeed a great way to move forward. Thanks, GerardM http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=gsw http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/documentation.asp?id=als On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, First of all, the codes that we all agree on that they are wrong need to be fixed. Then all the invented codes that are not known to either the RFC 4646 or better the ISO-630-3 need to be registered as such. When the people supporting these invented codes are not able to argue their case that their "language" is indeed a linguistic entity, I do not think we should support them. Mind you, even constructed languages are supported here, so it is just a matter of demonstrating that it is sufficiently unique. When we publish our data, we indicate in the meta data what linguistic entity this is. Given that the codes have to be standardised to be recognised, invented codes are wrong to have. When the code is something like fiu-x-vro, the x indicates that it is private designation and can be safely ignored. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 3:01 AM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote: