Last modified: 2009-07-29 19:29:34 UTC
Since October 2005 there is a ISO 639-2 code for the alemannic language (~"Swiss German"); [gsw]. See: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/codechanges.html Thus, there could be changed [xml:lang="gem-alsatian"] to [xml:lang="gsw"], and [lang="gem-alsatian"] to [lang="gsw"] in the html line: <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="gem- alsatian" lang="gem-alsatian" dir="ltr"> Best regards, Melancholie
P.S.: Of course this should be done for Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiquote, too. So, every wiki with the code [als].
The code [gsw] will also be the future ISO 639-3 code, by the way. See: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_language.asp?code=gsw
Done. We should probably rename them also (providing redirects) though.
Hmm, I think that "Alemannic" will probably get its language family code with [[ISO 639-5]]! See http://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=92157 for the language family tree. But [gsw] is the very most widespread alemannic "language" (actually "Alemannic" is the language, and Schwyzerdütsch [gsw] is "just" a dialect of it, but when they at SIL say so,...); this means, that we maybe should wait until [[ISO 639-5]] is out.
Hoi, The ISO-639-5 codes are not what the language committee accepts. We work with what is available and gsw is infinitely more suitable then als. Thanks, GerardM
The [[ISO 639-5]] is under publication, now! See http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39536 Let's wait and see if there is a code that may fit better for the pluricentric/pluralistic Alemannic WP than "gsw" [gsw belongs to only *one* of the Alemannic variants]. If there is no better code available then, we still can move everything to gsw! By the way: Nobody is requesting (nor will do, probably) *another* Wikipedia for Tosk Albanian at the moment, as there already is one (http://sq.wikipedia.org/ ;-) Standard Albanian is more or less the same as Tosk Albanian (respectively sq is based on als), see [[de:Toskisch]].
May also block tracking bug 19986, per comment #3 and following ones.
