Guernsey Jersey and Isle of Man ISO 3166-1 Codes
lucp at skopos.be
Fri Mar 31 19:13:53 CEST 2006
Michael Everson wrote:
>> I cannot remember how many times I have heard people on this list talking
>> about backward compatibility... and yet you don't want to record
>> changes to the codes that you rely on? Strange!
> Make your case to the rest of the people on this list and gather
> consensus. So far we have two votes Nay. Me, I don't see a need for this
As an outsider who happens to have been instructed to come to this
list by RFC3066, I'm not sure if my vote counts. I certainly won't be
offended if it is discarded.
As an outsider, however, I may be (not "am") more typical of the
intended audience than most of the others on this list, so here goes.
I'd say that anything that adds clarity and keeps track of
historical changes would be helpful to me when trying to make sense of
it all. Comments are therefore welcome in general.
In this particular case as well the comment would be helpful to me.
As a non-language expert, I would probably be asked to implement some
kind of support for only a subset of all language subtags. In my part of
the world, it is not unlikely that this subset would include the region
code GB. Without the "see also" I may not know to "see also" and
overlook the others.
I also see no cost or disadvantage. There may indeed be a risk for
runaway, but from my point of view I wouldn't mind much if that should
happen (although it may be better to defer that to RFC3066cinquies or
Bottom line: +1 if it counts, just my EUR 0.02 if not.
More information about the Ietf-languages