Region subtags under 3066 and 3066bis

Doug Ewell dewell at
Wed Feb 23 07:49:58 CET 2005

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> "If it wasn't allowed under 1766 and 3066, then don't use it" is
> one possible philosophy.  Excl. the private use codes allowed by
> the 3066bis draft - not necessarily a good idea.

Why not?  What problems do you see with using them?

>> 200 is a "previously used code" in UN M.49.  It was the only
>> alternative for encoding the former Czechoslovakia, which
>> there is a perceived need to do, short of inventing our own
>> code, which we most certainly don't want to do.
> It's of course a nice example for the future 3066bis procedure,
> and as motivation for the "region" entries in the new registry.
> But it's not strictly necessary for the affected languages.

I assume you mean the entries based on UN numeric codes; all of the ISO
3166-based thingies we are talking about are also "region" subtags.

>> We have the old PC because there is no new PC.
> Based on your 1974 philosophy, yes.  I mentioned 582, because
> it's like 200 for a later start date based on [ISO 3166:1988]
> as in RfC 3066.

Removing 200 is one of the issues I submitted to the authors.  I did not
take a position, and do not now.

>> The old GE is not in the registry.
> Okay, whatever GEHH 296 (KI+TV) instead of say GEKI 296 means,
> you have the new AI, CS, GE, and SK.

I don't understand this at all.

>> The code change from YU to CS had nothing to do with the plot
>> of land.  It had to do with the *name* of the country.  ISO
>> 3166 is a standard for encoding the *names* of countries, not
>> for encoding the countries themselves (unlike UN M.49).
> If they say BUMM, CSHH, DDDE, GEHH, VDVN, YDYE, and YUCS, then
> they must have a reason to do so.  Obviously they use XXHH for
> 1:n relationships, and XXYY for 1:1 or m:1 relationships.  And
> BYAA is something else.

You are correct.  Our "aliases" are based on 1-to-1 relationships only.
This issue has been presented to the authors in an organized fashion.
Please allow some time for them to digest it.

> Probably they just use their FQ and ignore any RfC saying that
> that's a bad idea.  Maybe I would ignore it for GG / IM / JE.

If you choose to ignore, or be "semi-compliant" with, a language tagging
standard (small "s") that is as widespread as RFC 3066 is, and as any
successor is likely to be, you do so at your own risk.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list