Swiss german, spoken

[Addison Phillips]

Not quite the same. es-419 would be redundant under 3066bis. "gsw" is illegal to register in 3066 and also 3066bis. 

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
> Sent: 2005年6月10日 16:02
> To: Peter Constable; ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Swiss german, spoken
> 
> Latin American Spanish is in a similar boat. Once 3066bis passes (which is
> looking quite likely these days), then there is a mechanism for doing that,
> so ideally we'd wait until then.
> 
> ‎Mark
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Constable" <petercon at microsoft.com>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Friday, June 10, 2005 15:36
> Subject: RE: Swiss german, spoken
> 
> 
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> > bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> 
> 
> > >Tag to be registered       : gsw
> >
> > This is not an RFC 3066 tag.
> 
> ?!
> 
> Of course it's not -- yet. That's why she's asking for it to be
> registered: so it can be one.
> 
> 
> Technically, there's a problem here in relation to 3066. (Sorry, Karen,
> for not thinking of this before.) An RFC 3066 tag of the form 3alpha
> must be in ISO 639-2. "gsw" is in ISO/DIS 639-3, but not ISO 639-2.
> 
> Of course, Karen's problem is that she needs a tag for this now, she'd
> like to use something that conforms to the RFC rather than just using
> something regardless, but she also wants something that conforms with
> what we anticipate will be best practice with a new RFC expected in the
> near future. Thus, her options are:
> 
> 1) start using "gsw" anticipating that it will be valid before long
> under a revised RFC (after 639-3 is published), and be non-conformant
> until then
> 
> 2) request a tag like i-gsw so she can be conformant now, and then turn
> around in a couple of months and asking for it to be deprecated and
> revise her implementations
> 
> 3) request a tag like i-gsw now with the assumption that we'll all be
> saddled long term with this - i.e. one more grandfathered special case
> in 3066bis
> 
> 4) request gsw, hoping that people will be willing to bend the rules of
> 3066 by accepting it in anticipation of a future revision
> 
> 
> 
> Both 2 and 3 are undesirable because of the impact with anticipated
> changes in 3066bis. Option 4 isn't permitted by 3066, though I wish that
> wasn't the case. The first option is the only one that's permitted and
> not undesireable for the community overall, though I wish we didn't have
> to leave Karen and MPAA with no better alternative (though it would only
> be temporary).
> 
> 
> 
> Peter Constable
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages