ISO 639 and RFC 3066bis
cowan at ccil.org
Wed Jun 23 06:49:22 CEST 2004
Addison Phillips [wM] scripsit:
> The problem here is the slippery slope. Do we obsolete data that uses
> these defunct names or regions, just because it isn't likely that we'll
> create more data. I'm in favor of deprecating the old codes, but banning
> them seems suspicous. If CS was a bad decision, why is SU, YU, BU, TP,
> etc. a good enough one to allow in? The obvious problem here is that,
> given an alpha2 namespace for ISO 3166 to work with and a reasonably
> desire for mnemonicity (is that a word??), it won't be that long before
> we have a healthy list of UN M49 numbers resulting from reassignments.
There's a difference between obsoleting codes and reusing them, though
with a fixed space obsoleting codes eventually implies reusing them.
I'd say don't allow any codes that were obsolete before some magic date.
> I assume that reserved codes that aren't assigned are codes that are
> not assigned (and thus banned).
I don't understand this sentence.
A mosquito cried out in his pain, John Cowan
"A chemist has poisoned my brain!" http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
The cause of his sorrow http://www.reutershealth.com
Was para-dichloro- cowan at ccil.org
Diphenyltrichloroethane. (aka DDT)
More information about the Ietf-languages