Guernsey Jersey and Isle of Man ISO 3166-1 Codes
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Fri Mar 31 23:43:52 CEST 2006
See inline comments
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Addison Phillips
> Sent: 31 March 2006 22:05
> To: lucp at skopos.be; 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Guernsey Jersey and Isle of Man ISO 3166-1 Codes
> In the IETF, your vote/hum always counts (when nose counting is done) :-).
> > Without the "see also" I may not know to "see also" and
> > overlook the others.
> My problem with "see also" is that it doesn't convey what the relationship
> is. My general expectation would be that these codes would either synonyms
> for "GB" or would somehow inform my choice.
I would like to revise the comment to be more informative (see my previous
mail) the initial comment was devised to have as little impact, whilst still
being informative, as possible. In other words, make it small and people
may not object ;-)
> An another analogy would be if the "US" code had "see also: UM, VI"
> (UM: United States Minor Outlying Islands, VI: Virgin Islands, U.S.)
Not knowing the history of this I cannot comment other than to say maybe it
is time to set a precedent to record historical changes to code where the
issuing body fails to do so. That is all I am proposing here.
> How does this inform language tag choice? Not very well. At minimum, a
> larger comment is necessary.
Ditto comment 1
> Addison Phillips
> Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.
> Internationalization is an architecture.
> It is not a feature.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> > bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Luc Pardon
> > Sent: 2006?3?31? 9:14
> > To: IETF Languages Discussion
> > Subject: Re: Guernsey Jersey and Isle of Man ISO 3166-1 Codes
> > 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
> > > 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
> > Belgium
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages