LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - GB

[Debbie Garside]

> >If GB is considered to still include the islands, then no 
> comment is needed.
> 
> GB oughtn't to have included them in the first place, I believe.

The problem, essentially, is that prior to 2006-03-29 GB included a note
stating that it did include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.  This
note has now been deleted within the latest ISO 3166 Newsletter (as
highlighted by Doug).

Hence the necessity (IMHO) for the comment within the registry.

Best regards

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of 
> Michael Everson
> Sent: 19 April 2006 14:53
> To: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - GB
> 
> At 06:38 -0700 2006-04-19, Peter Constable wrote:
> 
> >I thought about this a little more this morning, and I 
> realized this is 
> >the heart of the issue: with the addition of IDs for the 
> islands, is GB 
> >still considered to include the islands, or does it 
> explicitly exclude 
> >them? E.g. would an existing Jerriais doc tagged fr-GB still be 
> >correctly, albeit sub-optimally, tagged, or is it now incorrectly 
> >tagged?
> 
> GB is a code for the representation of the name of the United 
> Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is it not? 
> Well, the Isle of Man is not and never has been a part of the 
> United Kingdom. The Queen is Lord of Mann, but the Isle of 
> Man is not a part of the Kingdom, and indeed is not a member 
> of the EU.
> 
> >If GB is considered to still include the islands, then no 
> comment is needed.
> 
> GB oughtn't to have included them in the first place, I believe.
> --
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>