Hoi, Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that issues in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually. Thanks, GerardM
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Håvard Hjulstad HHj@standard.no Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has decided:
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used for the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and *Moldovan * in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in the ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items, and recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
Best regards,
Håvard Hjulstad
*--------------------*
*Håvard Hjulstad*
* Standard Norge / Standards Norway** ** Postboks 242, NO-1326 Lysaker** ** besøksadresse / visiting address: Strandveien 18*
* tel: (+47) 67838600 | faks / fax: (+47) 67838601*
* direkte tel / direct tel: (+47) 67838645*
*hhj@standard.no*
*--------------------*
_______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi, Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that issues in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually. Thanks, GerardM
It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?
Marcus Buck
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Håvard Hjulstad HHj@standard.no Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has decided:
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used for the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and *Moldovan
- in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in the
ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items, and recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
Best regards,
Håvard Hjulstad
I think the reasonable thing to do would be to move it to a new subdomain that indicates it is "rum" in Cyrillic, although I think that particular written language, usually known as Moldovan or even Cyrillic Moldovan, should have its own ISO code. Of course it is kind of a moot point right now as there are no active contributors (as it is locked) and no native speakers have requested an unlocking, but I think at some point, the idea of the script converter should be revived. It would not be too difficult, and although it might offend some people's political sensitivities, I don't seewhy we should bend over backwards for that instead of serving a particular population adequately.
Mark
On 03/11/2008, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi, Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that issues in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually. Thanks, GerardM
It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?
Marcus Buck
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Håvard Hjulstad HHj@standard.no Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has decided:
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used for the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and *Moldovan
- in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in the
ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items, and recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
Best regards,
Håvard Hjulstad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is available. It is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the Internet. When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would know that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant as a consequence.
I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has been dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be clear that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used. Thanks, Gerard
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi, Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that
issues
in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually. Thanks, GerardM
It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?
Marcus Buck
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Håvard Hjulstad HHj@standard.no Date: Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM Subject: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
The ISO 639 Registration Authorities' Joint Advisory Committee has
decided:
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* are deprecated
leaving *ro* and *ron/rum* the current language identifiers to be used
for
the variant of the Romanian language also known as *Moldavian* and
*Moldovan
- in English and *moldave* in French. (The identifier *ron* is used in
the
ISO 639-2 T table; the identifier *rum* in the ISO 639-2 B table.)
The identifiers *mo* and *mol* will not be assigned to different items,
and
recordings using these identifiers will not be invalid.
Best regards,
Håvard Hjulstad
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is available. It is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the Internet. When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would know that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant as a consequence.
I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has been dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be clear that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used. Thanks, Gerard
So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other memebers agreed to this?
Hoi, Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is available.
It
is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
Internet.
When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
know
that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant as
a
consequence.
I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has been dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be clear that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used. Thanks, Gerard
So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other memebers agreed to this?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with all projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related issues are under LangCom :)
-Chad
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
available.
It
is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
Internet.
When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
know
that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and languages. The question of what I personally find is not that relevant
as
a
consequence.
I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and I still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
been
dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
clear
that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used. Thanks, Gerard
So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other memebers agreed to this?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, We explicitly are not involved in any issue that has not to do with the process of starting new projects in new languages or existing languages.
There are several issues that are not dealt with as a result. However, these issues are not within the remit of the language committee. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with all projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related issues are under LangCom :)
-Chad
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
available.
It
is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
Internet.
When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
know
that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and languages. The question of what I personally find is not that
relevant
as
a
consequence.
I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and
I
still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
been
dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
clear
that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used. Thanks, Gerard
So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other memebers agreed to this?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
This has been a problem in the past. Everybody with a complaint or problem that is language-related wants to take it to LangCom for a ruling. However, LangCom only has the power to make decisions about new projects and new languages, as far as I know... so it is another situation where people are looking in the wrong place.
Of course, it would be logical for a language committee to handle all language-related affairs, but that is not the way it is. Although members of the LangCom may have opinions about, say, Serbo-Croatian or Moldovan or various other pre-LangCom linguistic debates, they don't have a mandate to make any sort of binding ruling on those matters, unfortunately.
Mark
On 03/11/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We explicitly are not involved in any issue that has not to do with the process of starting new projects in new languages or existing languages.
There are several issues that are not dealt with as a result. However, these issues are not within the remit of the language committee. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with all projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related issues are under LangCom :)
-Chad
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
available.
It
is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
Internet.
When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
know
that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and languages. The question of what I personally find is not that
relevant
as
a
consequence.
I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and
I
still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
been
dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
clear
that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used. Thanks, Gerard
So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other memebers agreed to this?
-- geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
2008/11/3 Marcus Buck me@marcusbuck.org
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi, Today I received the following e-mail. It demonstrates clearly that
issues
in the ISO-639 standard are dealt with eventually. Thanks, GerardM
It demonstrates that issues are dealt with when somebody complains about it. But it too demonstrates, that ISO codes are not a reliable base for decisions. They made errors when deciding on the original set of codes and codes can change when issues arise. This means that the language subcommittee shouldn't use the criterion "own ISO code exists" as a precondition. At the moment decisions of the language subcommittee are heavily based on the existence of ISO codes. There are many proposals for new languages where GerardM based the decision"eligible/not eligible" on the existence of an ISO code.
Btw: At the time, the Moldovan Wikipedia was proposed for closure, the ISO code of course still existed. GerardM opposed the closure then. I'd be interested what GerardM's position would be, if the Moldovan Wikipedia wouldn't have been closed then and it would still exist. If there were a proposal to close a still existing Moldovan Wikipedia today (after the ISO code change), what would be GerardM's position on it?
Actually, the ISO is ideal for us. It is an external organsation, not related to us in any way, and tries to be as neutral as possible. What you would like is some perfect measure as to what languages to approve or not, but there is none; believe me, if there was something better than ISO 639, we would switch right over, but there isn't.
What some people seem to want is for either us, langcom, or the community, to decide our-/themselves what can be deemed as languages or not, but believe me, that is not a path we would like to go down. No matter how hard we try, we would never be able to be as neutral or professional as the ISO team is, and the results would probably be arbitrary and inferior to what we have now.
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org