Hoi, I spoke with the convener of the ISO working group that includes the ISO-639 codes. I spoke with someone from SIL. Not vague at all. When you suggest that it takes 10 years, you do not know what your talking about.. One year is more like it. It does not preclude continued work on the Incubator..
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the Latin Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Again, there is no urgency and there is certainly no rush. Given Pathoschild's stance I am the closest that you have to ever getting an Old Greek project in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing a
corner
case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the
things
that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a reconstructed language, there is no urgency.
The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years. Just 7 years, and look at all that has been accomplished.
Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to consider significant. And if it ever were implemented in the medium term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing the larger issue.
Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed" code later if one was ever implemented.
But I assert that there -is- an urgency now. Waiting 10 years should not be an option. We would lose -far- too many good encyclopedia-writing hours.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l