I agree with the first part; there is no reason to create new records for codes that (a) were never in the registry, and (b) are retired (deprecated) in ISO 639.<div><br></div><div>As for the records for codes with equivalents, that is a completely different topic, and I'll split that off.</div>
<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:19, Kent Karlsson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kent.karlsson14@comhem.se">kent.karlsson14@comhem.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
My preference is to NOT create records in LSR for retired language<br>
codes that were never in the LSR.<br>
<br>
I see a much stronger case for adding records for three-letter<br>
codes that have two-letter code equivalents, and also for<br>
adding "UK" with the preferred value "GB". These were discussed<br>
during LTRU (with me in the supporting group), but such additions<br>
were turned down at the time.<br>
<br>
/kent k<br>
<br>
<br>
PS<br>
As for Wikipedia, the conformance to IETF language tags for<br>
Wikipedia "labels" is far from complete.<br>
<br>
For instance:<br>
simple, bat-sng, roa-tara, roa-rup, fiu-vro, map-bms, zh-classical,<br>
and cbk-zam aren't IANA language tags. Here I'm just picking those<br>
that stand out clearly.<br>
<br>
Another example is that "arc" (639: Imperial Aramaic, used 700-300 BCE)<br>
is used by Wikipedia for Assyrian Neo-Aramaic ("aii" with macrolanguage<br>
"syr" in 639-3). I'm sure there are more oddities.<br>
<br>
/k<br>
<br>
<br>
-------<br>
<br>
<br>
Den 2009-12-11 07.59, skrev "John Cowan" <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>>:<br>
<div class="im"><br>
> Michael(tm) Smith scripsit:<br>
><br>
>> This is a request to add the retired tag "eml" to the IANA<br>
>> language-subtag registry as a grandfathered tag. I realize this is<br>
>> an odd request; for the rationale, see "6. Any other relevant<br>
>> information" below.<br>
><br>
> I can't see adding it as a grandfathered tag, but there are plenty of<br>
> retired/deprecated tags in the registry now with more to come, and I<br>
> think there's a case that the 145 639-3 code elements that were retired<br>
> while LTRU labored should be inserted now. I can't find anything in<br>
> RFC 5646 preventing us from creating pre-deprecated entries.<br>
</div>> ...<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Ietf-languages mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br>
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>