| Badaa added a comment. |
Hi,
Thanks Gerard M.
I just read the Terms and definitions of ISO 639-3.
There are following sentences in paragraph 4.2.2 Individual languages:
There is no one definition of “language” that is agreed upon by all and appropriate for all purposes. As a result,
there can be disagreement, even among speakers or linguistic experts, as to whether two varieties represent
dialects of a single language or two distinct languages. For this part of ISO 639, judgements regarding when
two varieties are considered to be the same or different languages are based on a number of factors,
including linguistic similarity, intelligibility, a common literature, the views of speakers concerning the
relationship between language and identity, and other factors. The following basic criteria are followed.
- Two related varieties are normally considered varieties of the same language if speakers of each variety have inherent understanding of the other variety (that is, can understand based on knowledge of their own variety without needing to learn the other variety) at a functional level.
- Where spoken intelligibility between varieties is marginal, the existence of a common literature or of a common ethnolinguistic identity with a central variety that both understand can be strong indicators that they should nevertheless be considered varieties of the same language.
- Where there is enough intelligibility between varieties to enable communication, the existence of well- established, distinct ethnolinguistic identities can be a strong indicator that they should nevertheless be considered to be different languages.
and under 4.2.4 Dialects
The linguistic varieties denoted by each of the identifiers in this part of ISO 639 are assumed to be distinct languages and not dialects of some language, even though for some purposes some users may consider a variety listed in this part of ISO 639 to be a “dialect” rather than a “language”. In this standard, the term dialect refers to any sub-variety of a language such as might be based on geographic region, age, gender, social class, time period, or the like.
From these definitions, I would conclude Mongolian is an individual language rather than macro language. After all, it is correct my first assumption in previous comment. But I tend to think, to change/fix such an aged standard is almost impossible or?
Thus, I read furthermore ISO 639-3, there are following:
The dialects of a language are included within the denotation represented by the identifier for that language. Thus, each language identifier represents the complete range of all the spoken or written varieties of that language, including any standardized form.
For applications in which it is necessary to identify dialects, a separate standard may be developed that provides identifiers for dialects, or that combines identifiers from this or other parts of ISO 639 with other distinguishing identificational qualifiers. See 4.7 for further discussion.
...
4.7 Scripts and regions
Some languages are written in different scripts by different user communities. A single language identifier is provided for a language in this part of ISO 639 even though the language may be written in more than one script. For applications in which it is necessary to identify distinct writing systems of a single language, a separate standard may be developed that combines identifiers from this or other parts of ISO 639 with script identifiers from ISO 15924.
...
In ISO 15924, Mongolian script is defined as Mong (145) see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_15924
I also recognized that at least Firefox and Chrome (webkits) implemented the the lang attributes of "mn-Mong" for html tag. If I declare <html lang="mn-Mong">, then I see correct scrolling behavior for vertical layout.
Thus, we need to add the script code mn-Mong.
thanks,
Cc: Badaa, ChristianKl, C933103, jhsoby, thiemowmde, Liuxinyu970226, Lydia_Pintscher, GerardM, Aklapper, Zppix, Popolon, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
