Region subtags under 3066 and 3066bis
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Fri Feb 18 05:27:45 CET 2005
Doug Ewell wrote:
> GG (Guernsey) and JE (Jersey) are covered by 830 (Channel
Okay, I found 830 on the page:
You probably copy all these codes to your registry, and if the
UN later removes a code it's still available in the registry.
When they'll reach 999 they will pray continue with 1000 etc.
and not try to recycle old codes. That part should be clear.
> IM (Isle of Man) is covered by 833.
Let's hope that they find "gv" before experimenting with 833.
Maybe add a comment in your list, that alpha-3 codes are only
listed if there was no alpha-2 code when this registry "was"
(= will be) started. And therefore I won't find "glv".
> Having to hunt down a reference to a withdrawn ISO 3166 code
> element (not available for free from ISO) would be a recipe
> for trouble.
That's why I'm unhappy with the NH example in the draft and its
reference to the 3rd edition of ISO 3166: The "free" list is
the actual list of the 5th edition. Your collection of regions
contains numerous codes I've never before heard of (e.g. PU).
> See http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/lstreg.html for a
> proposed "initial state." This is all subject to review and
> debate, of course.
Okay, some observations:
The deprecated FQ could get a canonical TF. It's useless, why
fr-FQ for "French as in Kerguelen" if there is "fr-TF" ?
The deprecated BQ could be AQ or HM or GS (TBD, I often
confuse the Australian and the British territories).
Same problem as with FQ, BQ is useless for languages.
The deprecated PU could get a canonical UM (minus one
uninhabited Carribean "Navassa Island", see the CIA
world fact book for Midway, Wake, etc.). Maybe it's
fun to use en-UM instead of en-US, but who needs en-PU ?
The deprecated NT is useless in a registry about languages.
The deprecated NQ has the same problem as BQ, FQ, and PU,
a canonical code for NQ is BV (of course uninhabited).
The US among others never acknowledged these Antarctic
?Q territories (BQ, FQ, NQ).
The deprecated DD has a canonical DE. In theory de-DD could
make sense, but that would be also the moment where I'd want
a region code for say Wales.
The deprecated CT has a canonical KI.
The deprecated FX has a canonical FR.
The deprecated JT has a canonical UM (same idea as for PU).
The deprecated MI has a canonical UM (same idea as for PU).
The deprecated PC has a canonical PW (maybe PW and FM)
The deprecated PZ has a canonical PA (same idea as for DD).
The deprecated VD has a canonical VN (same idea as for DD).
The deprecated YD has a canonical YE (same idea as for DD).
You have a "changed RH" for ZW, how old is your source ? That
was long before RfC 1766 was published, it's ancient history.
Is the "official" name of Macedonia really still "FYROM" ?
Some "gradfathered" codes:
Is i-default different from "und" (alpha-3) ?
i-klingon has "tlh" in the comment (6th column), why not in the
5th column (canonical) ? I know that it's not yet in the 3066
registry, but that's only a bug, or isn't it ?
Same problem with i-lux vs. lb. In that case it is already in
the 3066 registry. Navajo also belongs to this group.
> It extends 3066 in this regard by re-allowing BU, DD, FX, NH,
> SU, TP, YU, and ZR.
If it was invalid under RfC 1766 in 1996 please get rid of it.
More information about the Ietf-languages