[Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This "Best Current Practice" 47 allows for codes that we will not ever
accept. Therefore replacing something that you consider the only game in
town, is definetly not the standard that we  will accept for the acceptance
of new projects. While it is accepted that the ISO-639-3 will be included in
the RFC 4646-bis, it currently is not and has not been for a long time.

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.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 5:23 PM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org>wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > The RFC4646 is even more restrictive then the ISO-639-3. This RFC is imho
> of
> > little value for our purposes. I think what you  have written
> demonstrates
> > that you do not know that much about the subject.
>
> The BCP 47 series has always used the most recent version of ISO 639. And
> RFC 4646 makes several references to reserving space for future
> developments in ISO 639. And it reserves all three-letter codes. RFC 4646
> predates ISO 639-3. I think we can use a defacto merger of ISO 639-3 and
> BCP 47 while we are waiting for the next RFC to come out.
>
> In fact, that is exactly what we have been doing with MediaWiki language
> codes since the release of ISO 639-3. For Internet protocols, it's not a
> choice of one or the other, BCP 47 is the only game in town.
>
> -- Tim Starling
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>