nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Mon Jan 28 17:10:31 CET 2008
Doug Ewell wrote:
> Under RFC 4646, this list is not empowered to register 3-letter
> langauge subtags that do not correspond to ISO 639-2 code elements.
Yes, we discussed this already when Peter proposed to add "sxu"
as an exception. My idea was to continue the work on 4646bis
allowing precisely what Peter proposed (in 4646bis, not today).
But Michael's "no" was clear.
> Under RFC 4646bis, this list will not be empowered to register
> 3-letter langauge subtags that do not correspond to ISO 639-2
> or 639-3 code elements.
Sure - I consider to ask in the Last Call to *REJECT* 4646bis,
because the ISO 639-3 source is not yet good enough to run on
auto pilot wrt this list, and the proposed "disputed territory"
region codes are IMO harmful for IANA.
> I seriously doubt we want to get into the business of picking
> and choosing among 7,200 new ISO 639-3 languages.
Yes, that was my question. It would be sad if the 4646bis work
is lost. Some of us will miss UTF-8, some of us will miss the
<extlang> removal, and there were lots of other improvements in
4646bis-08 (e.g. irregular tags). For different values of "us"
> they will doubtless make mistakes again, but do we have the
> resources and expertise to say we can do their job better?
Nope, only as second sanity check, this list could catch "eur",
but that is pointless if 4646bis *requires* its registration.
More information about the Ietf-languages