| Badaa added a comment. |
In T137810#4627253, @C933103 wrote:Sorry for late reply,
@Liuxinyu970226 If the concern of ISO639's RA is "users of the codes understand that part 2 of the standard has a code that includes several coded languages in part 3.", then probably what can be done is ask for cancellation of the mvf code and khk code in the ISO639-3?
Yes. Vote +1!
Also, another thing is that I have just discovered that there is an ISO639-3 language code cmg for "Classical Mongolian", would that actually be appropriate to be used to describe text written in Classical Mongolian language?
If so, it is fully appropriate.
We could consider it as old Mongolian language.
Actually, the big misconception is that there doesn't exist many Mongolian languages but many scripts. Mongolian pre-classical script, Mongolian classical script, Todo script, Cyrillic script and so one. This leads to complexity for localization, as languages (not scripts) are used for localization process.
Cc: Badaa, ChristianKl, C933103, jhsoby, thiemowmde, Liuxinyu970226, Lydia_Pintscher, GerardM, Aklapper, Zppix, Popolon, Nandana, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
