Scottish English
Doug Ewell
dewell at roadrunner.com
Wed Aug 22 07:23:40 CEST 2007
<Karen underscore Broome at spe dot sony dot com> wrote:
> I share Addison's concerns with using the 3166-2 codes. Many of these
> will be redundant with the ISO 639-3 codes, though this one is not.
In fact, I've been carrying around a summary of "Why ISO 3166-2 won't
work with RFC 4646" for some time, ready to be invoked the next time
this topic came up:
1. The ISO 3166-2 code list is not freely available, unlike other code
lists used to create subtags.
2. The ISO 3166-2 code list is not stable. ISO 3166/MA can change the
assignment of code elements at any time to reflect changes in
subdivisions or names as reported by governments. This is similar
to the situation with ISO 3166-1, but country subdivisions and
coding systems change much more frequently than countries.
3. ISO 3166-2 code elements may be from 1 to 3 letters and/or digits.
This puts them into conflict with the RFC 4646 syntax, since they
could not be distinguished from other types of subtags or from
singletons used to introduce extension or private-use subtags.
Examples of countries that have different ISO 3166-2 formats
(A = alpha, N = numeric):
A - Argentina
AA - United States
AAA - Mexico (this format is used when ISO 3166/MA assigns
the codes)
N - Austria
NN - Japan
NNN - Slovenia
Code elements with mixed letters and digits:
FR-2A (Corse-du-Sud)
FR-2B (Haute-Corse)
GR-A1 (Attiki)
Code elements consisting of the letter "X" (thus conflicting with
private-use subtags):
AR-X (Córdoba)
EC-X (Cotopaxi)
SE-X (Gävleborgs län)
VE-X (Vargas)
(One of my first involvement with this list was when I made a totally
false, newbie assumption that ISO 3166-2 codes could be tacked onto the
end of RFC 1766 tags, like "en-US-NY". John Cowan quickly and
diplomatically divested me of that idea, and I vowed to learn more about
how language tags really worked.)
Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:
> On another note, when I spoke to the 3166 MA on this very subject
> about 18 months ago he assured me that the codes could not be
> allocated as the trio make up a geopolitical entity in its own right -
> UK (along with NI). We then get on to the codes for Guernsey, Jersey
> etc. and the Falklands. It would seem that if there is water between
> the geopolitical/devolved entities they can have their own code and if
> there isn't they can't. Strange but true I fear!
But UNSD apparently doesn't have the same policy; they still have 830
for Channel Islands despite the new codes for Guernsey and Jersey.
> As to Scottish English. Bad move in my humble opinion. I can
> understand Edinburgh Standard and not Glaswegian Standard. Where is
> the use in such a code? Better would be: en-standard_glasgow,
> en-standard_edinburgh etc.
Unfortunately, that would introduce a great deal much more subjectivity
than "Scottish." If there are any "in-between" variations of note, how
would they be indicated?
--
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list