draft-phillips-langtags-04 /2.4.2 Maintaining private-use

Mark Davis mark.davis at jtcsv.com
Fri Jul 2 20:36:53 CEST 2004

That is incorrect. The current private use ISO 639 and ISO 3166 codes are
valid codes in their respective standards. So I can in the current RFC 3066
produce codes like:

en-QM (English with a private use region)
qaa-US (Private use language with US region)

I'm sorry that I haven't had a chance to respond to a number of the comments
so far. Addison and I discussed them before he flew off to Russia, so I will
try to answer them for the both of us in his absence, after the holiday
weekend. However, I find that quite a few of them are on the order of the
comment below; not recognizing that the current draft in many cases simply
documents and makes more rigorous a pre-existing capability (from the
current 3066).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tex Texin" <tex at xencraft.com>
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell at adelphia.net>
Cc: <ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 11:01
Subject: Re: draft-phillips-langtags-04 /2.4.2 Maintaining private-use

> Doug,
> In the current situation only the entire tag is private. This limits its
> usefulness since if you use a completely proprietary tag no other software
> do anything useful with it.
> The proposal though is to allow amending of supported tags with private
> add-ons. This creates an expectation that the tag will be generally
> and carry around the add-on with it. I suspect it will be used not only by
> private agreement for interchange with others, but as note-to-self in some
> applications. (e.g. Turn on this feature or that.)
> So it may be more generally used and therefore be a more significant
issue. And
> yet I am unclear as to the demand or need for this.
> tex
> Doug Ewell wrote:
> >
> > Tex Texin <tex at xencraft dot com> wrote:
> >
> > > Private use is a BAD thing where there are no agreements. Perhaps the
> > > caution against them should be more strongly stated.
> >
> > I repeat what I said earlier this week:  Is it genuinely a problem, in
> > the real world, that people are using private-use codes or tags where
> > there is no agreement, leaving users clueless as to what they mean?
> >
> > Can anyone cite instances where this was an actual problem?
> >
> > Failing that, is the strength of the caution really a significant issue?
> >
> > -Doug Ewell
> >  Fullerton, California
> >  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> -- 
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex at XenCraft.com
> Xen Master                          http://www.i18nGuy.com
> XenCraft             http://www.XenCraft.com
> Making e-Business Work Around the World
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list