Proposal to reserve ISO 3166-1 code elements
mark.davis at icu-project.org
Wed Apr 12 16:42:04 CEST 2006
I absolutely agree that these code elements should be reserved by the
ISO 3166 MA and never reused for different entities.
Doug Ewell wrote:
> This post deals with a proposal to classify 15 unassigned ISO 3166-1
> code elements as "reserved." Please don't dismiss this subject as
> "off-topic" for ietf-languages until you have read the entire post.
> In a message to ietf-languages on April 3, I listed 15 formerly used
> code elements from ISO 3166-1 that are classified not as
> "transitionally reserved" or otherwise "reserved," but as
> "unassigned." These 15 code elements are summarized as follows:
> DD German Democratic Republic (withdrawn 1990)
> YD Yemen, People's Democratic Republic of (withdrawn 1990)
> 13 others: BQ, CT, FQ, HV, JT, MI, NH, NQ, PC, PU, PZ, VD, WK
> (withdrawn 1977 through 1986)
> Note that the code elements DD and YD, having been withdrawn after
> 1988 -- "Date A" for purposes of the Language Subtag Registry -- are
> included in the Registry as deprecated region subtags.
> Since then, I have had a chance to read an actual copy of ISO 3166-3,
> which shows that the alpha-4 code elements in that standard represent
> not only "formerly used names of countries" (Section 1) but also
> formerly used code elements.
> Section 5.2 states that the ISO 3166-3 code list includes "... the
> formerly used country names together with their obsolescent alpha-2
> code elements, obsolescent alpha-3 code elements, obsolescent
> numeric-3 code elements (where relevant), [and] the period (years)
> during which these were valid...."
> This demonstrates that the 15 code elements in the list above, now
> present as the first part of ISO 3166-3 code elements, were officially
> assigned and valid in ISO 3166 and/or 3166-1 for a clearly defined
> period of time. Based on current practice within ISO 3166/MA -- see
> TP, YU, and ZR in recent times -- these 15 code elements should be
> classified as "transitionally reserved" to prevent, or at least
> discourage, their reassignment to other country names.
> This issue affects the ietf-languages list because of the presence of
> DD and YD. If the MA were to assign either of these code elements to
> a new country name, the code element could not be used in the Language
> Subtag Registry because of its existing meaning. According to Section
> 3.4, item 10 of RFC 3066bis, it would be necessary to use the UN M.49
> numeric code element as a subtag, something we in LTRU tried hard to
> avoid doing. Item 11 refers to the M.49 codes as "the value of last
> resort in cases where ISO 3166 reassigns a deprecated value in the
> registry," but clearly it is desirable to avoid this "last resort"
> A similar situation could potentially apply to other users of ISO
> 3166-1, especially if they also depend on certain withdrawn code
> elements to preserve stability, as we do.
> Debbie Garside and I have talked about this issue and agree that the
> MA should be asked to reserve these code elements, especially DD and
> YD, but we would like to get input (and hopefully support) from
> ietf-languages first. Please send any comments you may have to the
> list, or to Debbie or me, in the next few days before we submit this
> to the MA. If you reply to the list, please try to keep the scope
> focused on the impact on the Language Subtag Registry.
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> Debbie Garside
> Managing Director
> ICT Marketing Limited
> Corner House
> Barn Street
> Pembrokeshire SA61 1BW
> Wales UK
> Tel: 0044 (0)1437 766441
> Web: www.ictmarketing.co.uk
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages