Registration of el-Latn language tag
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Thu Sep 29 06:44:10 CEST 2005
Mark Davis wrote:
> Under 3066bis it will be much clearer what is and
> isn't valid.
Yes - actually the detail I was most interested in.
> (These were all valid 3166 codes at some point.)
For most I see or know it, but there are also a few
codes in your list I've never before heard of.
>>> haw-CT: Hawaiian(Canton and Enderbury Islands),
That's an example, IIRC it's in the world facts book.
>>> haw-FX: Hawaiian(Metropolitan France),
Here I'd guess that it was never valid.
>>> haw-QO: Hawaiian(Outlying Oceania),
That's news for me (like PU, but PU is plausible as
one of several UM predecessors). For QO I've no clue
what it could be today.
More information about the Ietf-languages