LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - GB

Debbie Garside md at ictmarketing.co.uk
Wed Apr 19 13:26:30 CEST 2006


Peter wrote:

> (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.)

In general, I am of this school of thought, in particular wrt 639-6.
However, I am not sure Her Majesties Govt. would be very happy with me if I
proposed this. The added comment will at least inform users as to when the
change occurred; I feel it is the best that can be done (diplomatically) in
this situation.

Best regards

Debbie Garside

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no 
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of 
> Peter Constable
> Sent: 19 April 2006 06:08
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - GB
> 
> 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 http://www.ethnologue.com/14/codes/default.asp.
> 
> 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 alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages- 
> > bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 4:00 PM
> > To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> > Subject: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION - GB
> > 
> > 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 * http://www.evertype.com 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages




More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list