Region subtags under 3066 and 3066bis (long)
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sun Feb 20 02:57:53 CET 2005
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote:
> There is also the CIA list which is of interest.
Not really, it's based on a national standard in the US instead
of ISO-3166. The main differences are a bunch of uninhabited
islands covered mostly by UM and YT (US and French islands).
The Paracel (sp?) and the Spratly islands are irrelevant, as
far as languages are concerned. Anything else has obvious ISO
> We are interested in networking people: ISO should be an help
> not a Bible. A grassroots process may also help ISO.
You'd probably like <http://www.nsrc.org/networkstatus.html> or
<http://www.norid.no/domenenavnbaser/domreg.html> - both based
> IMHO it should be related to the soil, then to the blood,
> then to the flag.
You are obviously not more talking about languages. For flags
I'd recommend <http://www.fotw.net/flags/iso3166.html> - it's
based on ISO 3166.
> We are not classing people, we are trying to provide them
> a reference grid they can use to pin their own cultural and
> linguistic context.
That's the "we" as in TINW if it's related to "soil and blood".
> He said removed FQ had no problem to be included in TF, which
> is a controversial political issue with Argentina.
Argentina and Chile may have differences about some Antarctic
claims, but that's not about the French claim FQ, see the map
at <http://www.fotw.net/flags/aq%28.html> (FQ is Terre Adélie).
> The point was should FK be removed, where would he put the
> former FK.
Now you're talking about FK, but nobody proposed to remove FK.
Or maybe you did, because you asked me whether the "Malvinas"
are AR or GB. And I answered that, the "Falklands" are FK.
More information about the Ietf-languages