Distinguishing Greek and Greek
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin
jefsey at jefsey.com
Wed Mar 16 16:39:50 CET 2005
On 16:12 16/03/2005, Panagiotis Sikas said:
>What I see here is the need for additional subtags ?????
The point where we disagree is that the currently proposed langtag uses
three identifying descriptors:
- language: ISO 693
- script: ISO 15924
- country: ISO 3166
and I say we need 2 more preference descriptors to be level with what Word
uses and the WG-ltru charter implies:
- referent: depending on situation and language it may be different
authoritative things. Word uses dictionnary.
- style: the environment of use.
1. the tag can have a consistant default strategy which makes the lang3tag
acceptable with all the existing and most of the future context - hence a
2. this permits to adapt the lang5tag to any network/community and even
This obviously permits to support all the Greek version, flavors, local
idioms, accent, sex, age, etc. (as in voice reader for blind people,
automated public information system, etc.).
For your convenience:
If you were Bcced for information and not familliar with the IETF process:
Jon Postel (RFC 1591): "The IANA is not in the business of deciding
what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list
as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with
the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which
entities should be and should not be on that list."
Brian Carpenter (RFC 1958/3.2): "If there are several ways of doing the
same thing, choose one. If a previous design, in the Internet context
or elsewhere, has successfully solved the same problem, choose the
same solution unless there is a good technical reason not to.
Duplication of the same protocol functionality should be avoided as far as
possible, without of course using this argument to reject improvements."
It seems that what works for countries and ISO 3166 since 1978 should
apply to languages and to ISO 693.
More information about the Ietf-languages