Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050409154123.03910ab0@pop.online.fr>
Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 16:16:04 +0200
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@online.fr>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Subject: [Ltru] ISO 639, ISO 3166 and ISO 15924 BCP 047 subtags supports.
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

With the automated deluge of resolved points which poured on this WG I am 
not sure of the exact situation.

1. ISO 639

I understand that we converge towards the idea that French and English code 
element documentation will be two BCP 047 "subtags".

I also understand that the more CPU costly to parse that "|" separators, 
but more flexible "jar notation" will permit (but not force) to add 
languages in registries desiring it (we will be directly able to generate 
your registry from ours). Our own Gositer format will permit easily to 
generate a FrancoEnglish registry from any multilingual system we may 
maintain. (Gositer is multifile [includes files] and multilanguages 
[entries are preceded by a language tag: jar "name:" is ":fr .name" in 
gositer).

I understand we still have a disagreement which is that the initial 
registry could bve registered as an RFC and only include the current ISO 
639-2, while I say that the RFC should say that every ISO 639 tables 
(2,3,6) should be registered when available under the responsibility of the 
"Reviewer".

2. ISO 3166

I am not sure about the ISO 3166 situation. Obviously every historic 
situation of ISO 3166 should be registered (if this was not the current 
situation please accept this as a formal opposition to any other 
proposition). Since the inception of ISO 3166 (as reminded we started using 
it in 1978), but also the reconstitution that the ISO 3166 commission may 
introduce, we need every information presented in the same way for an 
historically consistent description of languages.

3. ISO 15924

ISO 15924 is the younguest standard. Its use/way of use is not necessarily 
clear to most of the Internet application. There is obviously no harm in 
having it listed as BCP 047 compliant. The addition of other scripts should 
be concerted with the concerned standardisation organisations.

4. Initial registry

I understand there is a problem to make the initial registry French 
compliant, since some IANA entries have been made which does not include a 
French description. I suggest that the appropriate requests are sent to the 
French Commissions for ISO 639 and ISO 3166. I am not sure about the 
existence of a French Commission for ISO 15924. I will inquire. (I note 
that you may not have a heavy commitment if ISO 3166 prior 1988 elements 
are not retained).

General comment

I wish to underline this is written in the spirit of the WG-ltru Charter 
and only concerns the IANA registry, I make a separte issue from any 
format, from any usage, from any dissemination method, from any additional 
not ISO content and from any maintenance procedure. I only use the term 
"subtag" to be understood. I prefer the term if descriptor but I am open to 
any other term which does not refer to any given format.

jfc



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru