[Wikipedia-l] This is becoming relatively urgent.

Sun Feb 20 08:34:22 UTC 2005

I am cross. You have said I am of the opinion that these codes are irrelevant.

1. I have been unable to find a list of these codes,
2. It was not me but rather a developer who told me that these codes
are unusable because there is not yet an official final release. I
have told you once and again that there is no use - again, NO USE -
arguing this with me.
3. The codes I gave are supported fully by the respective communities
and comply with combined ISO 639-3 and RFC standards (or was it W3C?
or something) for representing unlisted languages - use six letters,
the general ISO code and then the Ethnologue code, and where there is
no Ethnologue code you can make one up if it doesn't conflict with
others (I believe?), and for languages for which there is no
appropriate general ISO code they should be prefixed with an i-, as in
i-ami (the closest ISO 639-3 comes is "Malayo-Polynesian languages";
however that is a sister subfamily to the Formosan subfamily to which
Amis belongs of the Austronesian languages and is thus unsuitable).

Mark

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 09:17:21 +0100, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Williamson wrote:
> 
> >Can somebody PLEASE create the Ossetic and Voro Wikipedias and the
> >Amis Wiktionary? Ossetic -> os:, Voro -> fiu-vro:, Amis -> i-ami:.
> >
> >I mean, seriously!!! The Voro people already even have the entire
> >language file translated! They are clearly very eager to get started.
> >Why are we holding them back like this?? The other groups are also
> >very clearly eager to get started. We created a chiTumbuka Wikipedia
> >with many less supporters, and almost as soon as it was requested, but
> >developers have practically turned a blind eye to these
> >widely-supported requests with next to no detractors.
> >
> >Mark
> >
> The Ossetic is not problematic the other two are. These do not have
> ISO-639 codes and we use these for our codes. Ask the board if they
> support the startup of these wikipedia.
> 
> There are the new ISO-639 codes, they would be a better choice if these
> languages are on there. If they are not, you can ask them to be included
> in this list. Then again you are of the opinion that these codes are not
> relevant..
> 
> Pity,
>     GerardM
>