Script codes in RFC 3066

Mark Davis mark.davis at
Wed Apr 9 08:29:35 CEST 2003

These comments are not clear to me. Are you referring to the language
subtags or to the whole 3066bis structure? That is, John's proposal was (in

language_code := language_subtags ("-" iso15924_code)?  ("-" iso15924_code)?
language_code := private_use_and_grandfathered_stuff

language_subtags := iso639_code ("-" ethnologue_code)?

     Note: x? means that x is optional.

Are you objecting to fact that language_code has structure or that
language_subtags have structure? 3066 already has structure, and the fact
that it does have structure is extremely important for compatibility. So
there can be no issue of changing that. So I assume that you are referring
to the language_subtags, and that you want to see somehow a single code for
that, not the combination of iso639_code and ethnologue_code.

(مرقص بن داود)
mark.davis at
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marion Gunn" <mgunn at>
To: <ietf-languages at>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 06:49
Subject: Re: Script codes in RFC 3066

I concur with that.

Scríobh Caoimhin O Donnaile <caoimhin at>:
>I think that language codes should be "atomic", not hierarchic,
>because opinions on hierarchies are likely to change.

Marion Gunn * E G T (Estab.1991) vox: +353-1-2839396 * mgunn at
27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn; Baile an Bhóthair; Contae Átha Cliath; Éire
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list