Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
Actually you misunderstand me. When you mix standards and the
difference between those standards disappears because of restraints
that YOU are under, it means that what you do is not up to standard.
Consequently it cannot be said that we implement the ISO-639 codes.
When we adopt the ISO-639-3 codes we have the SIL information
included. It is a custom to keep the two character ISO-639-1 codes as
well. This is in my opinion the only way out of this mess. NB We have
been using these codes already for over a year in Wiktionary.
Yes I know. URL's are case insensitive. We can implement ISO-639-3 and
we should do this. NB there are even standard formats to indicate that
a certain script is used as there are ISO codes for those too (ISO
15924).
So we either adopt a standard and do it right or we should not say
that we adopt a standard. If you want an official statement as to the
stability of the ISO-639-3, I think that I can get you that.
One also needs to remember that ISO 639-3 still reserves a block of
codes beginning with the letter "q" tha are user defined. These can be
used for languages that are not included in the standard. The languages
where that would be needed are not going to be the most popular or best
known, and are unlikely to become big wikia. If at some future time
thay are given a standard code conversion should not be a huge operation.
Ec