Peter_Constable at Peter_Constable at
Mon Apr 14 14:34:45 CEST 2003

Michael Everson wrote on 04/10/2003 04:01:53 PM:

> At 13:13 -0700 2003-04-10, Mark Davis wrote:
> >  > An even more general concern: Is there anything in az-latn-az that
> >>  is different from az-latn (and same for Cyrillic)? In other words,
> >>  do we need az-latn-az (and similar for uz and sp) at all?
> >
> >I know of at least one prominent system that distinguishes them in
> >so we (ICU) need to maintain that distinction.
> *THAT* kind of statement is not good enough for me. These are
> language tags. If there is no difference between az-Latn and
> az-Latn-AZ then two tags will not be registered. If ICU is broken,
> you must fix it. I do not want us to kludge 3066 or 15924 to cater
> for the difficulties of particular implementations.

I agree with Michael here. The intent of the references portion of the
registration form is to document what the nature of the distinction the
requested tag is intended to denote. Saying "some system makes a
distinction" doesn't tell anybody what that distinction is. Without knowing
the intended denotation, there isn't any basis for interoperation.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list