Script codes in RFC 3066
John Cowan
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed Apr 9 14:55:40 CEST 2003
Mark Davis scripsit:
> language_code := language_subtags ("-" iso15924_code)? ("-" iso3166_code)?
> language_code := private_use_and_grandfathered_stuff
In fact "private_use_and_grandfathered_and_IANA_ad_hoc_special_cases".
> iso3166_code := a 2-letter iso 3166 code if available, otherwise a 3-letter
> code.
Thank Mung, there are no countries that lack 2-letter codes, so the
3-letter codes in 3166 can be ignored. I suspect you meant to make
this comment about 639 codes. There is a stability problem with 3166
codes, but we are stuck with them anyhow; it would have been better to
use the rock-stable numeric codes, which come from the U.N. rather than
the ISO RA.
> a. x-Y exists in 3066bis, and later ISO introduces a 3 letter language code
> X' that means the same thing.
Indeed. In this case, x-Y is added to the "explicitly deprecated" list.
> b. x exists in 3066bis, and SIL introduces (or has now!) a code Y where x-Y
> means the same as x.
When SIL already has the code Y, then the 3066bis code is x, and x-Y
is not allowed (e.g. en, not en-ENG). The other subcase can't occur,
since every extant ISO code is mapped to one or more SIL codes already,
except the ISO codes that are out of scope for SIL: viz. constructed and
ancient languages. For the former, ad hoc IANA registration is suitable,
as with the existing art-lojban. For the latter, ad hoc will do unless
and until 639 is appropriately extended.
Getting all the persnickety details right is no easy matter.
--
What is the sound of Perl? Is it not the John Cowan
sound of a [Ww]all that people have stopped jcowan at reutershealth.com
banging their head against? --Larry http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list