Script codes in RFC 3066

Jon Hanna jon at
Wed Apr 9 17:37:20 CEST 2003

> > 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.
> I appreciate that.  My feeling, though, without being any kind of
> expert on the subject, is that the long term aim should be for
> a system of atomic (unstructured) codes together with an online
> database giving:
>   - hierarchic information for all extant codes
>   - obsoleted codes together with any information on equivalent
>     extant codes, and such hierarchic information as is still valid

The hierarchical nature of URIs is very useful. However many applications
treat them pretty much like opaque strings, and some applications (XML
namespaces, RDF) insist on them being treated as opaque strings.

Likewise the hierarchical nature of RFC 3066 is useful, but doesn't prevent
us from using them as opaque strings (beyond insisting on
case-insensitivity) in applications that either don't care about that
hierarchy, or which are applying their own hierarchical information.

Don't worry, be happy.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list