Hoi,
It is NOT easy to change codes. Just consider the tragic story of the
a project that is squatting on the code for the most
relevant Albanian language. We have asked this to be resolved for more then
a year. As to the ISO process, I know how long on average it takes, I made
it my business to know.
It is not acceptable to me to have projects that suggest to be one thing
while in fact they are not. Ancient Greek is an historic language and as
such it is no longer spoken. Either get its definition changed or get
another code.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
If you believe it would happen so soon (which I am
quite pessimistic
about, especially for the multiplicity of languages this might apply
to), then why not allow these Wikipedias to exist under the "wrong"
code for so short a time?
It would be easy to move them afterward, and you would find no
opposition to moving them then. If Pathoschild would agree to this,
would it be amenable to you as well?
Thanks,
Pharos
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l