LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Fri Apr 11 10:03:54 CEST 2003
re Michael's message:
> Is there a distinction between az-Latn and az-Latn-AZ? If so, what is
> it? If not, then only one tag is required in the language-tag
> registry, surely.
Is there a distinction in orthography between each pair of the following?
Unknown, yet 3066 permits all of them, since it is better to be safe than
en-AF, en-AL, en-DZ, en-AS, en-AD, en-AO, en-AI, en-AQ, en-AG, en-AR, en-AM,
en-AW, en-AU, en-AT, en-AZ, en-BS, en-BH, en-BD, en-BB, en-BY, en-BE, en-BZ,
en-BJ, en-BM, en-BT, en-BO, en-BA, en-BW, en-BV, en-BR, en-IO, en-BN, en-BG,
en-BF, en-BI, en-KH, en-CM, en-CA, en-CV, en-KY, en-CF, en-TD, en-CL, en-CN,
en-CX, en-CC, en-CO, en-KM, en-CG, en-CD, en-CK, en-CR, en-CI, en-HR, en-CU,
en-CY, en-CZ, en-DK, en-DJ, en-DM, en-DO, en-EC, en-EG, en-SV, en-GQ, en-ER,
en-EE, en-ET, en-FK, en-FO, en-FJ, en-FI, en-FR, en-GF, en-PF, en-TF, en-GA,
en-GM, en-GE, en-DE, en-GH, en-GI, en-GR, en-GL, en-GD, en-GP, en-GU, en-GT,
en-GN, en-GW, en-GY, en-HT, en-HM, en-VA, en-HN, en-HK, en-HU, en-IS, en-IN,
en-ID, en-IR, en-IQ, en-IE, en-IL, en-IT, en-JM, en-JP, en-JO, en-KZ, en-KE,
en-KI, en-KP, en-KR, en-KW, en-KG, en-LA, en-LV, en-LB, en-LS, en-LR, en-LY,
en-LI, en-LT, en-LU, en-MO, en-MK, en-MG, en-MW, en-MY, en-MV, en-ML, en-MT,
en-MH, en-MQ, en-MR, en-MU, en-YT, en-MX, en-FM, en-MD, en-MC, en-MN, en-MS,
en-MA, en-MZ, en-MM, en-NA, en-NR, en-NP, en-NL, en-AN, en-NC, en-NZ, en-NI,
en-NE, en-NG, en-NU, en-NF, en-MP, en-NO, en-OM, en-PK, en-PW, en-PS, en-PA,
en-PG, en-PY, en-PE, en-PH, en-PN, en-PL, en-PT, en-PR, en-QA, en-RE, en-RO,
en-RU, en-RW, en-SH, en-KN, en-LC, en-PM, en-VC, en-WS, en-SM, en-ST, en-SA,
en-SN, en-SC, en-SL, en-SG, en-SK, en-SI, en-SB, en-SO, en-ZA, en-GS, en-ES,
en-LK, en-SD, en-SR, en-SJ, en-SZ, en-SE, en-CH, en-SY, en-TW, en-TJ, en-TZ,
en-TH, en-TL, en-TG, en-TK, en-TO, en-TT, en-TN, en-TR, en-TM, en-TC, en-TV,
en-UG, en-UA, en-AE, en-GB, en-US, en-UM, en-UY, en-UZ, en-VU, en-VE, en-VN,
en-VG, en-VI, en-WF, en-EH, en-YE, en-YU, en-ZM, en-ZW
> >4. Using the country code to distinguish orthographies is *not* a new
> >concept; RFC-3066 permits that with *any* combination of ISO 639 code.
> >5. Why should the Azeri with Latin script be permitted fewer distinctions
> >than English or other languages?
re Harald's message:
> it would be a bit strange to go to a lot of trouble to register az-Cyrl-AZ
> only to discover that in the systems we wanted to be compatible with,
> az-Cyrl and az-Cyrl-AZ were treated identically in practice....
I can understand your concern. Well, among languages we need to make at
least the distinctions that Windows and others make; we have to be able to
interwork with major platforms. If the end goal is to extend 3066bis to
permit the equivalent of:
5. <iso_639_code> "-" <iso_15924_code>
6. <iso_639_code> "-" <iso_15924_code> "-" <iso_3166_code>
then it does no harm to have the additional registrations. If we can only
get az-Cryl and az-Latn registered, or if the end goal for 3066bis will not
permit both #5 and #6, then we would probably be forced to define our
language codes as "based on" RFC 3066, but not identical.
The registrations proposed are only the tip of the iceberg; eventually we
could need up to something like the following list (where * means each of
the various scripts used with the spoken language):
for zh-*: HK, MO, CN, SG, TW, US,...
for az-*: AZ, IR, ...
for uz-*: AF, KZ, KG, TJ, TM, UZ, ...
for sr-*: YU, BA, MK, HR, ...
which is why a generative mechanism is much simpler.
More information about the Ietf-languages