Guernsey Jersey and Isle of Man ISO 3166-1 Codes

Luc Pardon lucp at
Fri Mar 31 19:13:53 CEST 2006

Michael Everson wrote:
>> I cannot remember how many times I have heard people on this list talking
>> about backward compatibility... and yet you don't want to record 
>> historical
>> changes to the codes that you rely on?  Strange!
> Make your case to the rest of the people on this list and gather 
> consensus. So far we have two votes Nay. Me, I don't see a need for this 
> annotation.

    As an outsider who happens to have been instructed to come to this 
list by RFC3066, I'm not sure if my vote counts. I certainly won't be 
offended if it is discarded.

    As an outsider, however, I may be (not "am") more typical of the 
intended audience than most of the others on this list, so here goes.

    I'd say that anything that adds clarity and keeps track of 
historical changes would be helpful to me when trying to make sense of 
it all. Comments are therefore welcome in general.

    In this particular case as well the comment would be helpful to me. 
As a non-language expert, I would probably be asked to implement some 
kind of support for only a subset of all language subtags. In my part of 
the world, it is not unlikely that this subset would include the region 
code GB. Without the "see also" I may not know to "see also" and 
overlook the others.

    I also see no cost or disadvantage. There may indeed be a risk for 
runaway, but from my point of view I wouldn't mind much if that should 
happen (although it may be better to defer that to RFC3066cinquies or 
later ;-).

    Bottom line: +1 if it counts, just my EUR 0.02 if not.

    Luc Pardon

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list