Hoi,
We do not have the expertise to do what you propose. Your alternative is
inviting another Siberian Wikipedia. Thanks but no thanks.
GerardM
On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:19 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling(a)wikimedia.org>wrote;wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
On Meta you replaced the ISO-639-3 requirement with an RFC 4646
requirement.
These things are incompatible.
No, on meta I removed the ISO 639-3 requirement entirely. I replaced the
ISO 639 code in the request section with "RFC 4646 code (if available)".
In another post:
Acceptance of the RFC 4646 as the standard to go
by would mean that we
split
the
en.wikipedia.org in the many variants
accepted under this standard.
Not
a good idea you will agree.
No, I'm not suggesting that we use RFC 4646 in the same way that you have
been using ISO 639-3. I'm suggesting that we make our own decisions on
which languages should be included, independently of any standards body.
An RFC 4646 code is useful, if there is one, but it shouldn't be necessary.
-- Tim Starling
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l