[Koha-bugs] [Bug 10986] Limit the list of languages in advanced search through system preferences

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.koha-community.org]

http://bugs.koha-community.org/bugzilla3/show_bug.cgi?id=10986

--- Comment #19 from mathieu saby <mathieu.saby at univ-rennes2.fr> ---
(In reply to Blou from comment #18)
> (In reply to mathieu saby from comment #17)
> > Thanks. What do you think of my comment 12?
> > 
> > Mathieu
> 
> Technically, it does that.  The tableS contain all the language information,
> and the preference determines which one is used by the drop down.  The
> default is EMPTY.  I find that cleaner and easier to maintain long term.  If
> nothing is in the preference, the whole list is returned.
> 
> I must point out I don't know the difference between Marc21 and iso codes. 
> I detailed it as using iso 639-2 just because some variable in the code was
> refering to it.  The fact is, it is using whichever code we are currently
> building our "language hash" with.


I am not an expert, but the differences seems to be slight, and mainly between
the names of the languages, not the codes themselves.
http://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/introduction.pdf

"ISO 639-2 (Codes for the representation of names of languages-- Part 2:
alpha-3 code) was based on the MARC Code List for Languages and published in
1998. In the 22 cases where the ISO 639-2 list has two alternative codes, the
bibliographic code is the same as the MARC code. Language names in ISO 639-2
are not necessarily the same as those in MARC, particularly because of the
practice of correlating the MARC language names with those used in
Library of Congress Subject Headings. The MARC list includes references
for unused forms of language names, while the ISO list has in some cases
included alternative name forms,but many are lacking, since this practice of
supplying alternate forms has only recently been implemented.
In addition the MARC documentation includes a list of individual languages
under collective codes or language groups, while the ISO list only includes the
group codes themselves.The Library of Congress is maintenance agency for both
lists, and the two are kept compatible in terms of code additions and deletion"


M. Saby

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching all bug changes.