Tom:
I think we should discuss it in Seattle--there's a significant
implication for legacy implementations.
Diane
>
>Andrew,
>
>As long as you are checking and editing the proposed changes to
>DC-15 properties, would you (or anyone else) like to suggest a
>position on the 2- and 3-letter language codes? As it stands,
>the draft change comment [1] does not explicitly take a stand
>in this regard.
>
>Personally, I am inclined to support the 3-letter approach
>[2] if we see is a clear preference for it. However, it is
>worth recalling that the wording used in the draft changes [1]
>was originally a response to a comment last March that the
>wording currently in force uses the three-letter code "eng"
>[3] and is therefore out of line with the RFC guidelines.
>If we now want to consider recommending something else, the
>argument would need to be made and documented. Would anyone
>like to volunteer?
>
>I'm wondering whether this issue is too big simply to fold
>into the current batch of proposed changes [1] and whether
>we need to discuss it in Seattle. Opinions on this please?
>
>Tom
>
>[1]
>http://stage.dublincore.org/usageboard/2006/2006-01.definitions/term-changes/
>[2] http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0602&L=dc-usage&P=601
>[3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#language
>
>--
>Dr. Thomas Baker [log in to unmask]
>Director, Specifications and Documentation
>Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
|