Missing subtags 003 and 172
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Sat Jul 31 23:31:39 CEST 2010
It would save a lot of work to just do it.
And it is hard for me to see how we would change the text anyway. Maybe:
A. UN numeric codes assigned to 'macro-geographical
(continental)' or sub-regions MUST be registered in the
registry. These codes are not associated with an assigned
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code and represent supra-national areas,
usually covering more than one nation, state, province, or
ADD UNDERLINE to MUST ;-)
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 13:02, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> "Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126 dot com> wrote:
> I don't believe that those are necessarily the rules. An oversight can be
>> corrected. The 003 (North America) code appears to me to be an oversight
>> arising from the fact that it appears in an odd place in the M.49 code list
>> (but is clearly indicated to be a "continent" there). I think that such a
>> code, since it is not explicitly forbidden and fits the intended set for
>> inclusion, can and should be registered via the normal request process.
> Does the rest of the list feel that way? I'm wary of subjecting Michael
> and myself to process appeals and recall petitions.
> I think it's unfortunate that the drafts I edited which ultimately became
> RFC 4645 and 5645 went through literally years of combined review, during
> which I implored WG members to read both the prose and the attached registry
> contents, and nobody ever spotted this apparently crucial "oversight."
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages