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