Retired 639-3 codes

[Doug Ewell]

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:

> My preference is to NOT create records in LSR for retired language 
> codes that were never in the LSR.

+1

> I see a much stronger case for adding records for three-letter codes 
> that have two-letter code equivalents, and also for adding "UK" with 
> the preferred value "GB". These were discussed during LTRU (with me in 
> the supporting group), but such additions were turned down at the 
> time.

-1.  We have to follow the rules decided upon in LTRU.  If there is a 
desire to change them, we have to re-charter LTRU and revise RFC 5646.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­