[Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy

Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Sep 5 17:29:43 UTC 2008


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 at wikimedia.org>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 at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



More information about the wikimedia-l mailing list