No subject

loath to agree that modern texts in a dead language is not the dead language
itself.
Thanks,
        GerardM

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:39 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org>wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The IETF has been involved in incorporating the ISO-639-3 for over a year
> > since the moment this version of the standard became official. The new
> > proposed RFC will be the RFC 4646-bis. Many languages that we recognise
> in
> > the Wikimedia Foundation are not recognised in the RFC 4646. It is
> exactly
> > because of this standard being behind the time that we use the ISO-639-3.
>
> You are making a requirement that a language proposal must have a *unique*
> ISO 639-3 code. That is much more restrictive than what I am suggesting.
> I'm saying that we shouldn't need a unique language code of any kind. All
> we need is a domain name and something to put in the lang attribute. As
> far as I'm concerned, the lang attribute can be "und", and the domain name
> can be a 7-letter transliteration. Both can be changed at any time after
> the creation of the project.
>
> We've been ahead of the standards bodies in the past, and we've moved
> wikis when they've caught up. I see no reason why we can't do it again.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>