Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050403010904.03bf9600@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 01:39:52 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposed changes to region subtags
In-Reply-To: <424F0BD9.7960@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <20050401205735.MVSI2135.mta2.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<00bf01c53753$6c312320$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<424F0BD9.7960@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

I do not understand all this endless academic debate. ICANN (IANA) is a 
member of the ISO 3166 MA group. I suggest you try to locate who is the 
IANA person in charge and ask him what is the fix the IANA supports. Then 
you publish an RFC on the issue to help him/her go and impose to ISO. As 
Randy says standards reflect personal references: make sure your personal 
reference becomes the rule.

Let be realistic: this WG will probably not rule the world, and will not 
prevent changes (and their resulting many possible mistakes). Any rigid 
system will not scale. And will not adapt in continuity with past 
situations (prior 1988 or 1974). The only rule you can apply is "parameter 
in context" what means you must know the date of the system a document 
refers to.

In real life, ISO 3166-2 will be used. You cannot imagine that en-US is 
descriptive enough when en-PT can offer an accuracy down to a group of 56 
people.

jfc

At 23:17 02/04/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>  [200]
> > That's not the type of backward compatibility that BU and DD
> > and YD provide.  They are there precisely so that existing
> > content with those tags *does not* have to be retagged with
> > MM or DE or YE.
>
>Point.  Let's forget 200, it's a hopeless case, and the rules
>in 3066bis enforce that it can never happen again.
>
> > we need to come to some sort of agreement that not every
> > problem related to the splitting and merging and shifting of
> > countries is going to be solved within language tags.
>
>Mark claims that this is only an "academic exercise".  Maybe he
>thinks that CS, DE, VN, YE, and YU were all academic exercises.
>So far we discussed three solutions:
>
>1 - Fix it for past problems (before 1988), ignore 200, DE, YE,
>     and YU.  That's now ready, and 200 can't happen again.
>
>2 - Add UN numbers for regions when they are otherwise "lost".
>     You don't like it, because it only works by updating old
>     tags.  I also don't like it, but it's the only emergency
>     exit in this "academic exercise" (about twice per decade)
>     with something like the draft -00 rules.
>
>3 - Use UN numbers for stable entries, otherwise allow and
>     accept that all alpha-2 codes are instable by design.
>
>I don't see a fourth solution,  Sooner or later "1" loses some
>regions, that's an observation for the simple rules in draft
>-00 and before, demonstrated by YE and YU.
>
>Now if you and Mark would say that you understand the problem
>and ignore it intentionally, then we can go with solution "1".
>
>Is the problem clear ?  Or should I elaborate the BY + RU => RU
>and US => US + XX "academic exercises" ?
>
>                             Bye, Frank
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru