 |
 |
+1 for using BCP-47, which will give you the overall most flexiblity. -- Mark A. Matienzo <[log in to unmask]> | http://anarchivi.st/ Director of Technology Digital Public Library of America On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Andrew Cunningham <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > It is better to refer to BCP-47 instead. > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47 > > An RFC can be updated, when it is, it recieves a new number. For language > tagging, the relevant information is split across two RFCs. BCP-47 is a > permanent IEFT ifentifier referencing the latest versions of the two RFCs > relating to language tagging. > > Andrew > > On 2 Jun 2016 9:24 am, "Stuart A. Yeates" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > I recommend reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646 which seems to > do > > what you need. > > > > cheers > > stuart > > > > -- > > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Greg Lindahl <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > > > > Some of the Internet Archive's library partners are asking us about > > > language metadata for regional languages that don't have standard > > > codes. Is there a standard way of dealing with this situation? > > > > > > Overall we use MARC codes https://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/ which > > > were last updated in 2007. LOC also maintains ISO639-2 > > > https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php last updated > > > in 2014. > > > > > > The languages in question are regional languages which are currently > > > lumped together in both standards. With the recent rise in interest > > > and funding for regional languages, it's no surprise that some > > > catalogers want to split these languages out into separate codes. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > -- greg > > > >