[Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy

[Gerard Meijssen]

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
>