language subtag registration request: Region EU

[JFC (Jefsey) Morfin]

At 17:12 12/01/2006, Doug Ewell wrote:
>Markus Scherer <markus dot icu at gmail dot com> wrote:
>>   Type: Region
>>   Subtag: EU
>>   Description: European Union
>>...
>
>There are already region subtags not only for Europe (150), but also 
>for Northern Europe (154), Southern Europe (039), Eastern Europe 
>(151), and Western Europe (155).  So it is difficult for me to 
>imagine what would be gained by also having a subtag for "European Union."

Delicious...
This is also true for America. For the same reasons I suppose you 
will agree in removing "us". The golden rule: KISS.
However, maybe someone can tell me if Hawaï is part from America or from Asia?

>I understand the desire to say "French as spoken in Europe," perhaps 
>akin to the oft-cited "Spanish as spoken in Latin America," but to 
>my mind fr-150 serves the first purpose just as well as es-419 
>serves the second.  I don't support the proposal to add the subtag EU.

en-eu is a sometimes quite different from en-uk and en-us. Specially 
in the European intergovernance area where some meanings had to adapt 
to more advanced concepts by non common laws nations.

Dear Markus,
A few weeks ago a major decision changed the purpose of this list. 
This was a decision made by the Congress of the United States of 
America. It said that the internationalized US Internet, as 
documented by the IETF, is managed by ICANN, of which the IANA 
langtag registry management is a function. This mailing list and the 
RFC 3066 Bis therefore concern a US industry and national system 
spaning abroad.

This creates a vacuum: the lack of an equivalent registry and 
architectural support for the Multilingual/Multinational Internet. We 
all prefer both to be as much continuity as possible. This is the 
transition organised by Tunis. This is why I asked an IAB guidance on 
the way to proceed. This is also why I finalise an appeal to the IESG 
against some RFC 3066 bis parts, to make the US stystem interoperable 
quality wise with the expected World system. My proposition is even 
that the US system can be used as a default, at least during the 
transition period.

I note that this kind of debate is a good example of the difference 
of vision between US internationalization and multilingual 
harmonisation, and the problem of compatibilty we will face. For 
example, non-US Govs and people are not interested in countries as 
such, as are the USA and as is RFC 3066 bis.  This is simply because 
they are the countries. They are interested in their own network 
communities and in domains. They do not name domains and languages 
for e-commerce, but to be support their users.  "eu" is a top level 
geographic domain equivalent to "us", "uk", "je", "in", "gg", etc.: 
it will obviously be technically treated equal. But many other 
geographical zones will be treated the same. We see the language 
naming as a service, not as a constraining control tool.

I suppose that many things will also have to adapt with the support 
of ISO 639-6.

jfc