<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi.<BR> <BR>Doug, Peter, thanks for your corrections. (My last post was sort of hasty, maybe.) <BR> <BR>
(I assume M. Lang wants NM because MN is taken but I think we only register region codes when a UN M.49 code becomes available with no ISO 3166 code??? or else when a 3166-1 code is created with no corresponding UN M.49 code??? Both seem like odd situations??? Someone please clarify this discussion for me; I thought we only registered variants, but it seems that the language subtag reviewer can also, in some unusual circumstances, register region codes??)<BR> <BR>Back to the variants: I'm fine with waiting till till RFC 4646 is published before considering M. Vaillant's variants; (Sorry; I thought that discussion was o.k. since we had discussed "erzgeb" while waiting for a successor of RFC 4646 ; see <A href="http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2008-March/007672.html">http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2008-March/007672.html</A> but of course, there will -- hopefully-- not be that long a wait for RFC 4646 & it makes sense to wait!)<BR> <BR>Thanks!<BR><BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR> <BR>Lang Gérard <A title="Suggestion: registration of variant subtags for Aluku, Ndyuka,	and Pamaka" href="mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no?Subject=Suggestion: registration of variant subtags for Aluku, Ndyuka,and Pamaka&In-Reply-To=F194087747F64973B778ABDA6D2A0D58@DGBP7M81"><FONT color=#000000>gerard.lang at insee.fr </FONT></A><BR>Mon Jan 26 15:49:10 CET 2009 <BR><BR><BR><BR><PRE>> Dear Doug,
> 2-The alpha-2 code element "MF" is associated with the country name "SAINT-MARTIN (FRENCH PART)", so that M is for Saint-Martin, and F for French part.
> And if SINT-MAARTEN, that will soon no more be part of Netherlands Antilles, becomes a new entry inside ISO 3166-1, a code element like NM (N for Netherlands and M for Maarten) would be very good to see the separation of the territory of this islands betweem two sovereignties !
> Bien cordialement.
> Gérard LANG <BR>> <BR>Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org <BR></PRE><PRE>Mon Jan 26 01:12:13 CET 2009 <BR> <BR>> CE Whitehead had written:<BR>>> As far as I understand, it is possible to change the ISO639-3 codes <BR>>> and language names (Joan Span's posting has just reminded me of this), <BR>>> but you are right; I do not think a change to the code itself would be <BR>>> worth pursuing; if you wished to add additional names however, that <BR>>> would be fine:<BR>> Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> replied:<BR>>> It is *not* possible to change the ID of an already-encoded category, <BR>>> so requesting such a change is definitely not worth pursuing. Changing <BR>>> the name without changing the semantic is possible, however, and <BR>>> changes to a semantic are possible with restrictions so as to avoid <BR>>> causing existing usage to become invalid.<BR>> I'm only guessing, <BR>> . . . <BR>> I think maybe it needs to be stated again that neither this list nor <BR>> LTRU is the place to request changes to ISO 639-3, or even to offer <BR>> advice about what changes can be made to 639-3. The RA has a very open <BR>> and accessible change-request mechanism, at least when compared to other <BR>> ISO standards, and we ought not to try to act as a surrogate for that.<BR>> CE continued (I missed this earlier):<BR>>> And we can still approve the variant subtags (once RFC 4646 is <BR>>> published? Is that the consensus?)<BR>> RFC 4646bis, not 4646.<BR>> I don't understand why this would be a question of "consensus." Once <BR>> the language subtags are in the Registry -- call it Date D -- we can <BR>> review any proposals related to those subtags, such as M. Vaillant's <BR>> variants, and the Reviewer can act upon them. We just can't take any <BR>> action on these proposals until Date D.<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR></PRE></body>
</html>