13 Nov 06:13
Reminder: ISO 639-3 changes are coming
Doug Ewell <doug <at> ewellic.org>
2009-11-13 05:13:38 GMT
2009-11-13 05:13:38 GMT
This is just a reminder -- inspired by a false-alarm WatchThatPage message I got today -- that ISO 639-3/RA will be reviewing the 2009 batch of change requests through December 15, and will issue a report, probably in January, listing all the changes they have approved. This will be the first time that the annual round of ISO 639-3 changes will directly affect the IANA Language Subtag Registry. In past years, as part of the effort to keep draft-4645bis up to date, I kept track of these changes myself. Now, they will be a full part of the ietf-languages change control process. Each 639-3 change that affects the Registry will require its own proposed record and registration form, posted to this list for a two-week review period, and will have to be submitted individually to IANA. This is the process outlined in RFC 5646 and approved by the IETF and IESG. Last year the RA approved 150 changes; the year before, 383. This year, there are 143 pending change requests to be considered. That does not mean the RA will necessarily approve them all, or that each approved request will map 1-to-1 with a change in the Registry, but it would not be unrealistic to assume 100 or more changes. I just want to make sure that everyone is aware this workload is coming, probably about two months from now, and that we don't treat it as some sort of sudden, unexpected anomaly and propose ad-hoc rule changes to work around it. It is the way of our future, once a year. -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s (Continue reading)
.
Certainly each proposed change/addition must have its own proposed record and registration form (note
that the form contains the record, so these are effectively the same thing). It does not say anywhere that
the changes must be individually submitted to ietf-languages@ nor that they must all be considered
separately. I would suggest that they be batched by the reviewer based upon his evaluation (e.g. separate
the additions from the modifications and the records requiring additional scrutiny if such exist from
the routine). I would expect most of them to be routine, assuming the proposed records were assembled
according to the rules. This will be significant work for you, I dare say, since the Description fields
have some requirements that are more difficult to verify.
Section 5.1 does say that forms sent to IANA must have individual emails. However, this could be
coordinated so that they don't have to process each of the hundred odd emails separately... by sending
them the batched records as well. It would be best to talk to them about the coordination, especially since
the resulting registry should be validated for things such as inadvertent duplication of a record.
Addison
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126
Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces <at> alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-
RSS Feed