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, 19 Feb 2005 22:36:06 +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 0F00161BB6; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:36:06 +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 17607-09; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:36:05 +0100 (CET) Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FFC061BFF; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:36:00 +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 8CC2D61BB6 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:35:58 +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 17678-02 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:35:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from montage.altserver.com (montage.altserver.com [63.247.74.122]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id C83AE61B92 for ; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:35:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from if12m4-235.d2.club-internet.fr ([212.195.66.235] helo=jfc.afrac.org) by montage.altserver.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.44) id 1D2cGW-0007sz-Cn; Sat, 19 Feb 2005 13:35:53 -0800 Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050219213242.04fb4cf0@mail.jefsey.com> X-Sender: jefsey+jefsey.com@mail.jefsey.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.1.2.0 Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2005 22:17:19 +0100 To: "Doug Ewell" , From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" In-Reply-To: <001e01c516b1$79835600$030aa8c0@DEWELL> References: <20050218110003.67CE5621DB@eikenes.alvestrand.no> <001e01c516b1$79835600$030aa8c0@DEWELL> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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 - alvestrand.no 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: Region subtags under 3066 and 3066bis (long) 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 Doug, very interesting comments. This becomes near of our concerns. At 19:33 19/02/2005, Doug Ewell wrote: >I apologize in advance for the length of this post (13 KB). > >Frank Ellermann wrote: > > > Okay, I found 830 on the page: > > > > > > You probably copy all these codes to your registry, and if the > > UN later removes a code it's still available in the registry. > >Not exactly. The rules for using a UN numeric code are clearly stated >in the draft. > >There are 231 UN codes that represent countries, plus another 37 that >represent regions like "Northern Africa" or economic groupings like >"Small island developing States," plus another 10 that have been removed >from use. There is also the CIA list which is of interest. > Maybe add a comment in your list, that alpha-3 codes are only > > listed if there was no alpha-2 code when this registry "was" > > (= will be) started. And therefore I won't find "glv". > >Again, the draft is very clear on this point. If an alpha-2 code is >available for a given language, only that code is valid for language >tags, and *not* the corresponding alpha-3 code. Thus neither "fra" nor >"deu" (nor "fre" nor "ger") is valid for use in language tags. This >concept was actually introduced with RFC 3066, back in 2001. 2001 is not that old. Still time to correct a contextual limited view. At that time there were not 7260 languages considered. The 2-alpha codes should continue to be supported but to be deprecated in the long range. >I don't have a copy of ISO 3166-3; it costs 70 Swiss francs, which is >roughly 45 euros or 59 U.S. dollars. I got my historical data from >Clive Feather's page at http://www.davros.org/misc/iso3166.html. It >isn't official, but I generally think of Clive's work as being >thoroughly researched, so I doubt he made up any of the codes or got any >of the dates badly wrong. I welcome any corrections from anyone who has >a "real" copy of ISO 3166-3. I built one I killed by mistake. I try to rebuild it but do not find back the site I used (it was a ISO 3166 based menu, with all the areas documented). There are a very few in google. But the pages of those I found are complex to quickly filter. If anyone knows such a menu. The USG sites and large NGO? I think the one I found was with ecology, but simpler than the one I find back. But the UN location is as much important. A good list would be an aggregation of both. The geography and people do not change because the flag changes. We are interested in networking people: ISO should be an help not a Bible. A grassroots process may also help ISO. It's important that we have explicit rules to determine what codes are >used, and why, rather than just picking whatever strikes our fancy. IMHO it should be related to the soil, then to the blood, then to the flag. Because we do not consider Representative from ISO Member States but individual users. We are not classing people, we are trying to provide them a reference grid they can use to pin their own cultural and linguistic context. >> the IETF is not in the business of deciding what is a > >> country. > > > > Sure, but FK is a valid ccTLD and a valid 3166 country > > code, and unlike BQ / FQ / NQ there's also a population. > > The UN region number is 238. > >FK is also a valid ISO 3166-1 country code, and is therefore a valid >region subtag under RFC 3066bis (and 3066 and 1766). I don't see the >controversy here. Frank confused the point: it was not clear for someone not being involved in the political aspects as I thought he was. He said removed FQ had no problem to be included in TF, which is a controversial political issue with Argentina. The point was should FK be removed, where would he put the former FK. >ISO 3166 codes are used, as they have been for 10 years now, because >they identify countries and country-like entities as defined by an >international organization more qualified to do so than you or I. They are used as alpha-3 since 1977 and stabilized in Oct 1978 at the proposition of Mike Rude. They are used as alpha-2 to identify traffic refilers (Telex operators, Internet foreign communities) at my request and upon approval of Jack McDonnell since early 1982. They have been pasted in the parameter file of the ARPA Internet gateway with the international public networks in early 1984. They have been described by Jon Postel in October 1984 in RFC 920 which describes our consensual MoU and is the way the Legacy works (well) since then. ICANN claims legitimacy from this RFC. As being directly involved in this I can clarify the problem you face in here: RFC 3166 alpha-2/3 was used not because it identified countries as you are trying to do in here, but because it identified State Monopoly Operators and legal monopoly enforcement rules and policies we had to deal with within the ITU framework. > The >ccTLD mechanism has chosen to encode some additional things, like AC and >GG and JE, and that is up to them. It has also chosen to use UK for >United Kingdom instead of GB, and that has actually added to the >confusion because now there are TWO current codes for the same entity >(at least in some people's minds). This was our decision to respect the legal British entity (BPO, now BT and our own Tymnet UK operations). The use of "UK" was by Robert Tréhin (father of the root) in 1977 as the first international datacoms interconnect agreement (France was first but as an access rather than as an interconnect and asked for FRA. We stabilized national networks root names on alpha-3 as I told above). IMHO you identified well the problem which is to keep the reference to States in dealing with territories. States should qualify the language tag. Not be part of it. Or to have both political and societal tags in parallel. The whole problem is first a problem of tag semantic, inheritance and of synonyms. In most of the cases the considered tags identify the same reality. With a good semantic you would not mind describing the same reality from different point of view. Being locked in historic legacy aspect does not scale. jfc _______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages