doug at ewellic.org
Wed Sep 17 06:05:23 CEST 2008
Lang Gérard <gerard dot lang at insee dot fr> wrote:
> Concerning "AQ", and with consideration to the internationaly
> recognized definition of this territory, a correct interpretation
> could be that the related languages are the
> four languages (english, french, russian, spanish) that give an
> official linguistic version of the Treaty on Antarctic (Washington,
> 1st december 1959) and of all subsequent international acts on
I think this is putting the cart before the horse (sorry, I don't know
the corresponding French idiom). Region subtags in BCP 47 don't define
a set of languages, official or otherwise. Rather, they identify
language varieties that are commonly associated with the region.
A common example is French (fr): sometimes it is useful to distinguish
French as spoken in France (fr-FR) from French as spoken in Canada
(fr-CA). It would not be appropriate -- at least not within BCP 47 --
to go the other way and associate 'CA' with a set of languages including
English, French, Inuktitut, and several others.
The "correct interpretation" of the region subtag 'AQ' would simply be a
variety of some language that is commonly associated with Antarctica.
It's highly unlikely that any language varieties fall into that
category -- the 1959 treaty notwithstanding -- but all of the officially
ISO 3166-1 code elements are available to serve as region subtags. We
don't pick some and discard others -- the same as our policy with
language and script codes.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages