Fixing the lost el-Latn (was: Re: Process Enhancement)

Luc Pardon lucp at
Sat Mar 25 09:39:26 CET 2006

Frank Ellermann wrote:
> If they really fix the lost el-Latn in the old registry it
> requires a (forbidden) late addition to "redundant" in the
> new registry. 

    I beg to differ. I'd say it's _not_ an addition, it's the correction 
of a factual error in setting up the new registry. This case is not 
provided for, so it can't be forbidden. I assume you're referring to 
RFC3066bis 3.3 where it says:

    The set of redundant and grandfathered tags is permanent and stable:
    new entries in this section MUST NOT be added and existing entries
    MUST NOT be removed

    But el-Latn is not a _new_ entry, it is simply a _missing_ entry. It 
should have been there from the beginning. It is missing because the new 
registry was made from a wrong version of the old registry (i.e. with an 
approved tag missing).

    It follows that:

    a) inserting a "redundant" record for el-Latn, not being a "new" 
entry, is not forbidden and hence allowed, and

    b) inserting a "redundant" record for el-Latn is required because 
the new registry as it stands today is in error and must be fixed.

    The error is entirely of the same nature (human mistake) and could 
(and IMHO should) be corrected in the same sensible way as the "fy" 
addition/modification mistake was corrected, i.e. by simply editing the 
appropriate HTML page(s).

    It's interesting to note that the "fy" case technically involved a 
deletion of an existing entry, which is expressly forbidden ("MUST NOT" 
in 3066bis 5.1) and, as has been pointed out here, potentially far more 

 > At some point rules are rules, and you've
> to know how to break them without causing serious harm.

    Not that I disagree, quite to the contrary, but in this particular 
case I'd say the rules were broken already by omitting el-Latn.

    Specifically, RFC3066bis 2.2.8 says:

       Existing IANA-registered language tags from RFC 1766 and/or RFC 3066
       maintain their validity.  These tags will be maintained in the
       registry in records of either the "grandfathered" or "redundant"

    And in 3.3 it repeats:

       The redundant and grandfathered entries together are the
       complete list of tags registered under [RFC3066].

    Currently, this is _not_ the case. As I see it, el-Latn _was_ 
IANA-registered from the moment the LTR approved it. The Rule says there 
must be a "redundant" record for it. There is none. The Rule is broken, 
the Rule must be mended.

    Unlike the "fy" case, the mending for el-Latn can be done without 
breaking any other rules.

    Luc Pardon

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list