Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Apr 19 07:07:41 CEST 2006

IMO when there are changes in a code table where the addition/removal/redefinition of one ID impacts the interpretation and usage of another, then it is appropriate to document the impact so that users have guidance to make appropriate choices. We shouldn't journal historical trivia, but changes that significantly impact usage IMO should be documented.

One example of such practice (for the Ethnologue 14 code set) can be seen at

I think the comment Debbie has suggested is a useful and appropriate addition, and I support her request to add that comment to the registry entry for GB.

(BTW, one school of thought says that if you divide an entity then *all* the new entities require new IDs. In other words, "GB" should continue to encompass the islands -- otherwise you end up with an unknown and not-readily-identifiable number of documents/records that are suddenly incorrectly tagged -- and a new ID should be used for the entity GB - (GG + JE + IM). But obviously ISO 3166 isn't managed with that level of rigour.)

Peter Constable

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:00 PM
> To: ietf-languages at
> At 23:30 +0100 2006-04-18, Debbie Garside wrote:
> >Hi Michael
> >
> >Have we had enough discussion on this to proceed with a request to update
> >the registry?  I feel the general consensus is to include the extended
> >comment:
> >
> >  "as of 2006-03-29 GB no longer includes the Channel Islands and Isle of
> Man
> >see GG JE IM"
> I didn't detect such a consensus. Most recently Addison objected. Why
> do we have to track this, "informatively"? It seems a matter for the
> MA and its website.
> --
> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list