Peter Constable petercon at
Wed Apr 19 17:27:55 CEST 2006

Ah! Forgive my ignorance.

In that case, it seems like there's no change to GB, and that the only change is that things that previously had no coded representation (for purposes here) now do. If that's the case, then we don't need to do anything besides add the new entries to the registry (already done).


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at] On Behalf Of John Cowan
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2006 7:24 AM
> To: Michael Everson
> Cc: IETF Languages Discussion
> Michael Everson scripsit:
> > >If GB is considered to still include the islands, then no comment is
> > >needed.
> >
> > GB oughtn't to have included them in the first place, I believe.
> In my view, it never did.  The meaning of the ISO 3166 codes is dependent
> on the UNSD codes, and the codes for the United Kingdom (826), the
> Channel Islands collectively (830), Guernsey (831), Jersey (832), and
> Man (833) have been separate for quite a while.  (Doug probably knows
> how long.)  The 3166/MA action just rectifies the anomaly whereby
> places with UNSD codes did not have 3166 codes.
> --
> Only do what only you can do.               John Cowan <cowan at>
>   --Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice
>     to a student in search of a thesis
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list