New Web page on supplementary RFC 3066bis codes
dewell at adelphia.net
Wed Jun 23 08:59:54 CEST 2004
Misha Wolf <Misha dot Wolf at reuters dot com> wrote:
> The page contains one instance of "must not" and two instances of
> "MAY NOT" (caps and underlined). All three are italicised. I've
> Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels
> and failed to find a definition of "may not". Please could you
> replace it with "must not". Please also harmonise your use of case
> and underlining in these three instances.
It hadn't occurred to me to follow RFC 2119 recommendations in this Web
page, but it's an excellent idea, especially if I expect this to be a
working (if unofficial) supplement to RFC 3006bis. I've made the
suggested changes and eliminated the needless underlining.
Mark Davis <mark dot davis at jtcsv dot com> wrote:
> Nice work!
I should note that the passage explaining UN code 001 ("World") in terms
of "de-001" versus plain "de" was plagiarized from a private e-mail from
I've made some other changes as well. While standardizing my use of MAY
and MUST NOT, I abandoned the attempt to color-code the charts using the
dominant color of their respective standards' home pages -- you did
notice that, right? -- and replaced it with a greenish tint for allowed
(MAY) codes and a reddish tint for disallowed (MUST NOT) codes.
More importantly, I added information on one of the more important
topics surrounding these "deprecated" codes, the potential equivalence
relationship involving codes that have a direct replacement. For
example, deprecated "iw" (Hebrew) = modern "he", and deprecated "TP"
(East Timor) = modern "TL" (Timor-Leste, same place). If this
equivalence thing is to work, there needs to be a complete resource that
implementers can refer to, not just selected examples.
The new version is now available at, once again,
All comments are encouraged, good or bad, editorial or technical.
More information about the Ietf-languages