Region subtags under 3066 and 3066bis

[Doug Ewell]

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.