Swiss German, spoken

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin jefsey at
Sat Jun 11 22:48:00 CEST 2005

Dear all,
What Doug says seems unfortunately right. If I read you all correctly: 
Karen, who is not Peter and Mike to register for free, on behalf of their 
corporations, entries following the rules of a probably never to be RFC, is 
to send a letter to the Library of Congress in Washington with a shipment 
of 50 books of a quasi never printed language to wait months for this 
millenary core European language to be registered in a Californian host 
created by Brother Doug Engelbart and now under the disputed management  of 

I opposed most of you because I thought that Peter convinced you of his 
ideas (which are probably correct for a printer/publisher) and you 
understood where his strategy commercially lead you. But such a vivid 
example of what you accept from your Draft 3066 bis shows that most 
probably you do not have even understood this. Think of the impact of this 
case: I will use in the slides I prepare for my July 1st workshop on 
"Referencing and Cultural Sovereignties". Because what the Internet 
community expects from BCP 47 is precisely what Karen wants: to describe 
how IANA easily registers tags which are not listed in ISO documents and 
the community needs, whatever the position of ISO. This will be documented 
in the ccTLD/NIC Draft under preparation to be presented at the Luxembourg 
meeting. Your target should not be to censor users' needs in using ISO as a 
filter. It should be to advise users and ISO so they avoid conflicts. Here 
you only show that either you do not want it, either that you did not 
understand it or that you do not know how to do it.

But this is your problem.

FYI, we start working on the AFRAC CRC server this week. Our target is to 
support this kind of registration by early October in an ISO 12620 and ISO 
11179 compatible manner, through the project UNITAG. It will permit a 
correlation with ISO 639-3, 5, 6 according to the ISO 639-4 guidelines 
(either as discussed in Varsaw or as per a working ISO 639-4 bis extension 
we would probably complete based upon experience by the year's end). 
Obviously we relate this work to terminology and to any language expression 
(scripts, signs, oral, icons, restrictions and combinations) and 
security/confirmation elements. In this we certainly consider the help from 
IETF, ISO, UNESCO, MINC, W3C, etc. documents, but we are mainly motivated 
by the requirements of a user-centric multilingual, multimedia, multimodal, 
multitechnology network architecture. We hope that we can come by fall with 
a proposition of cooperation of your IANA registry for the written aspects.


At 19:19 11/06/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>It looks to me as though Karen *has* read RFC 3066 and 3066bis, and/or
>the discussion lists, and has requested "gsw" on the basis that it will
>be compatible with 3066ter, and "es-419" on the basis that it will be
>compatible with 3066bis.  This is actually more foresight than a lot of
>previous proposals have shown.
>I don't see any reason not to approve "es-419" if there is currently a
>need for it.  It will be classified as "redundant" under 3066bis, but
>one more redundant tag won't hurt anything.  We just approved several of
>them for Chinese.
>The request for "gsw" is another story.  Unlike 3066bis, which is
>nearing completion, there is no set schedule (or even good estimate) for
>the release of 3066ter.  It will depend not only on the release of ISO
>639-3, but also on the Working Group process that will be needed to
>create and approve 3066ter itself.  This has proven to be slow and
>painful in the case of 3066bis; we don't know if it will be any better
>next time.
>Unfortunately, as many have already said, 3066 doesn't allow 3-letter
>tags like "gsw" to be registered unless they already exist in ISO 639-2.
>Addison and John have a good idea: write to the ISO 639-2 Registration
>Authority and request that they add this code.  They've responded to
>individual requests in the past; I think that's how "fil" for Filipino
>got added.  They will require proof of at least 50 "documents" in at
>most 5 locations, as John said.
>Failing that, I actually think the best short-term solution for
>Schwyzerdütsch would be to register "i-gsw" under 3066, and have it be
>grandfathered under 3066bis (which offers no alternative coding for this
>language).  Under 3066ter, it would presumably be deprecated in favor of
>"gsw", but I have no particular confidence that that document will be
>ready for use "in a couple of months" if our experience with 3066bis is
>any indication.
>Doug Ewell
>Fullerton, California
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list