FW: Re: draft 10 and 3166
addison.phillips at quest.com
Thu Feb 17 18:59:23 CET 2005
> From: Addison Phillips
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:58 AM
> To: 'ietf-languages at alvestrand.no'
> Subject: Re: draft 10 and 3166
> Frank Ellermann opined:
> If YU, NH, and IM are open for a future debate here, then it
> could be better if you avoid these codes as examples in the
> draft. In the worst case - if you want to be compatible with
> RfC 1766 - you need all "officially assigned" country codes
> 1996. That would kill DD, SF, NH, and SU, but still allow TP,
> YU, and ZR. Probably I forgot some odd cases. Bye, Frank
> I tend to agree about the use of problematic items in the draft, although
> I also note that some of these items are interesting in the draft
> precisely because of ISO 3166's assignment/unassignment of the codes.
> The draft registry is being maintained by Doug Ewell and decisions made
> about inclusion/exclusion of certain codes (and, perhaps more important,
> the *reasons* for inclusion/exclusion) are part of his thinking about the
> current contents of that version of the registry.
> I'd send the link, but if you look at my signature you'll note that I've
> change affiliation and thus am resurrecting all my bookmarks and so forth
> Addison P. Phillips
> Globalization Architect, Quest Software
> Chair, Internationalization Core Working Group
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
More information about the Ietf-languages