Debbie Garside md at
Fri Apr 21 00:40:16 CEST 2006

Hi Kent

I think the GB issue has somewhat set a precedent.  That said, I think each
case should be dealt with on its own merits.  Whether people here feel that
this precedent should now be extended to include historical entries is a
matter for the list (I say that at risk of incurring the wrath of Doug).

I think there has, in the past, been a lack of guidance on these issues; I
am quite astonished at this lack of continuity.  However, I don't think that
the registry is the best place to do this; suffice to say I saw it as the
easiest option for not losing the GB GG JE IM relational data. I think these
code changes should be better documented within the ISO standards and I also
think that, in general, certainly within ISO 639, there are significant
moves afoot to make sure that code changes are well annotated in the future.

I don't think it is a good argument against the GB comment to say that this
type of comment was not added to FI; it just means that in this case the
change was not documented. 

As I have said before, I think these changes should be documented within the
ISO standards - which brings me back to liaison.  If IETF-languages does not
inform ISO of this communities needs how do you expect ISO to react
accordingly.  It is very difficult to change things AFTER the event.  

With regard to sv-SE and sv-AX, it was my understanding (through
conversations with colleagues in Stockholm) that it is generally considered
that sv-AX is a "purer" form of Swedish and this could perhaps indicate some
difference between them but perhaps that is spoken rather than written; I am
sure you know better than I. 

Best regards

Debbie Garside 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at 
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of 
> Kent Karlsson
> Sent: 20 April 2006 23:04
> To: ietf-languages at
> I was kind of hoping this suggestion would just go away...
> Otherwise we have exactly the same issue with AX and FI.
> Note or not, FI presumably used to include Åland, now it 
> presumably does not (though I haven't followed the issue 
> closely). So sv-FI used to cover both Swedish as used in 
> Finland (excl. Åland) and as used in Åland, while now they 
> have separate codes, sv-FI and sv-AX. As it happens they are 
> not identical (as languages). However, sv-SE (official, 
> disregarding dialects) and sv-AX are identical as languages...
> Now, are we to note that in the LSTR?
> And how about 'nn' and 'nb' vs. 'no'? There is no "guiding 
> comment" about those. In practice, I'd say 'no' is equvalent 
> to 'nb', even though 'no' should cover both 'nb' and 'nn'.
> This one really needs some kind of guidance.
> I'm sure there are other cases.
> 		/kent k
> > File-Date: 2006-04-19
> > %%
> > Type: region
> > Subtag: GB
> > Description: United Kingdom
> > Comments: as of 2006-03-29 GB no longer includes the 
> Channel Islands 
> > and
> >   Isle of Man; see GG, JE, IM
> > Added: 2005-10-16
> > %%
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list