Return-Path: Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([unix socket]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Cyrus v2.1.11-Mandrake-RPM-2.1.11-1mdk) with LMTP; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:49 +0100 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.2 Return-Path: Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EE0C61DEA; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14803-10; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DECE621BC; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:37 +0100 (CET) X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0859C61B9D for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 14647-09 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:32 +0100 (CET) Received: from pechora.icann.org (pechora.icann.org [192.0.34.35]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC73561BF5 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 23:03:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by pechora.icann.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j1CM2sq08636 for ; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:02:54 -0800 Received: from lns-p19-8-idf-82-65-67-203.adsl.proxad.net ([82.65.67.203] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1D05MP-0003yy-10; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 14:03:29 -0800 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050212200348.04d25b20@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 20:29:50 +0100 To: "Mark Davis" , "Peter Constable" , From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" In-Reply-To: <004801c5112f$46f343d0$6801a8c0@sanjose.ibm.com> References: <004801c5112f$46f343d0$6801a8c0@sanjose.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - montage.altserver.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - iana.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - jefsey.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no Cc: Subject: Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at alvestrand.no At 19:18 12/02/2005, Mark Davis wrote: >I want to point out that there are currently 338,345 valid language tags >according to RFC 3066. The great value of RFC 3066 is that people *didn't* >have to go through a registration process for the overwhelming majority of >these cases. Yes, this IS the difference. RFC 3066 acknowledges the use of ISO 639 on the Internet, like RFC 1591 acknowledges the use of ISO 3166. It permits special cases to be registered in addition, like RFC 1591 permits special cases to be addressed like ".ps", ".eu", ".su" in accordance with the NTIA agreement with ICANN and the IETF IANA MoU with ICANN and ISOC. The French tags you quote make no problem being used. They would make in immediate problem (same as the Draft) if they were registered because there is no reason for that in the RFC 3066 vision. RFC 3066 and 1591 accept codes from external existing systems with their well defined purposes and maintenance rules, and permit to add a few of them if necessary. RFC 3066bis creates a brand new system and wants to impose it where it does not fit. You say that the IBM and Microsoft requested registrations are needed. May be could you document for why they are specifically needed (the whole reason chain) - if this is not a proprietary reason - so we could better analyze and discuss the issue on concrete examples? I will copy a response I send to John Klensin on the IETF list which makes a summary of the multilingual issue, together with the remarks on the IANA to Peter Constable. jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages