Debbie Garside md at
Wed Apr 19 19:29:39 CEST 2006

> I thought about this a little more this morning, and I 
> realized this is the heart of the issue: with the addition of 
> IDs for the islands, is GB still considered to include the 
> islands, or does it explicitly exclude them? E.g. would an 
> existing Jerriais doc tagged fr-GB still be correctly, albeit 
> sub-optimally, tagged, or is it now incorrectly tagged?
> If GB is considered to still include the islands, then no 
> comment is needed. (The registry already indicates when the 
> new entries were added; we don't need to document that with a 
> comment on GB.) But if GB is considered to exclude the 
> islands, then its denotation has been affected and we should 
> document that with a comment on GB as Debbie has proposed.

It is my personal view that the GB tag has now changed and no longer
includes the islands.  Politically it should not have included them anyway
IMHO.  Historically, the GB tag could have been used for tagging GG JE and
IM items; the comment, as proposed, highlights this to new users.  IMHO
historical data tagged with GB is still OK - it is a matter of choice as to
whether a user goes back to re-tag at a finer level but it is important that
users know that this may be the case; especially for matching scenarios.
However, from this point forward users should tag using GG, JE and IM.

The deletion, by ISO, of the original note in this regard leads me to assume
that GB no longer includes GG JE and IM.

Best regards

Debbie Garside

> Peter Constable
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list