On 09/13/2000 12:04:24 PM "Ayers, Mike" wrote:
> What I'd really like to know is why there seems to be this
>insistence on only one official list of languages when there appears to be
a
>clear need for two. There appears to be interest for a comprehensive, if
>imperfect, list on one hand, whereas other applications (web use, etc.)
are
>interested in a fully researched list like RFC1766 provides. Why must
these
>be the same list? Can't we acknowledge that it's going to take a long
time
>to get everything right and work from two eventually converging lists?
Just
>wonderin'...
I have no problem with that whatsoever. Creating an alternate namespace
mechanism with Ethnologue codes in a separate namespace seems to offer
exactly what you describe.
- Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable
Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
