Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Mar 1 03:44:42 CET 2010
ISO 3166-1 Newsletter VI-7, dated 2010-02-22 (but not posted until a few
days later), announces a name change for code element SH from "Saint
Helena" to "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha." This doesn't
represent as much of a scope increase as it might seem, since the
Remarks entry for SH previously stated that the code element "included"
Ascension Island and the Tristan da Cunha Archipelago.
Normally for us, this simple ISO 3166/MA action would trigger a simple
change to the Description field for subtag SH. However, because the
LTRU WG decided to add the ISO 3166-1 "exceptionally reserved" code
elements to the Registry -- including AC for Ascension Island and TA for
Tristan da Cunha -- we have a decision to make. In addition to making
the name change for SH, do we also deprecate AC and TA and give each a
Preferred-Value of SH?
According to RFC 5646, "Usually, the addition of a 'Deprecated' field is
due to the action of one of the standards bodies, such as ISO 3166,
withdrawing a code." Obviously the MA would not have "withdrawn" these
two code elements, since they were not assigned, only reserved. It is
we (LTRU) who chose to put these reserved code elements on an equal
footing with normal assigned code elements.
My opinion should be clear -- deprecate AC and TA -- but I'll wait to
hear from others before posting any forms to the list.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages