Proposal for a subtag registration (fr-2004-ORTOGRAF or fr-ortograf

Doug Ewell dewell at
Mon Dec 17 01:35:13 CET 2007

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

>> ubuntu takes curently iso-639-1 and 639-2, it is written black on 
>> white:
> Then that is completely irrelevant to your request, since you are not 
> asking this list to provide you with an ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-2 ID, 
> (nor can this list provide such).

To continue from the Launchpad site:

"My language has no ISO 639 code assigned. Can I still translate in 
Launchpad without one?"

"Launchpad's policy is that having a language code assigned in ISO 639 
is a requirement for us to be able to setup a translation team.  In most 
cases, getting a code assigned by ISO is not complicated.  Visit the 
Library of Congress' website to get more information on how to do this."

I wonder how the ISO 639/RA feels about Launchpad telling Ubuntu 
enthusiasts to petition them in this way, simply directing them to the 
online request form and characterizing the process as "not complicated" 
and not calling their attention to the RA's published criteria for 

As Peter points out, it doesn't seem to matter whether we register a 
variant 'ortograf' or not, if the purpose is to enable an Ubuntu 
translation team to be formed, since they require an ISO 639 code 
element.  Even if an optional ISO 3166 country code is used -- as some 
sources claim, and as seems to be necessary to create separate 
"Portuguese" and "Brazilian Portuguese" releases -- this still falls 
short of the syntax of RFC 3066 or even 1766, which always allowed 
registered tags like "i-mingo" on an equal footing with "en".

In fact, the Launchpad page makes no mention whatsoever of RFC 1766 or 
3066 or 4646.  It makes me wonder how M. Périard ended up here at all, 
since we are not a list for registering things in ISO 639.

Whether the existence of a BCP 47 variant 'ortograf' matters to Ubuntu 
and/or Launchpad, it still bothers me that the Reviewer is being asked 
to award a certificate of authenticity, as it were, to Ortograf to 
fulfill the requirements of the Ubuntu and/or Launchpad localization 
group.  That is not our job.  We are not a diploma mill.  We are here to 
register subtags that enable the tagging of specific instances of 
linguistic content, written or spoken or signed or whatever.  This is my 
view; I know there are some people who feel the Registry should go 
beyond this and serve as a generalized repository for localization 
codes, and I trust those people to express their view as I have 
expressed mine.

M. Périard has offered some good evidence to support registration of 
'ortograf' for purposes of language tagging as expressed in RFC 4646.  I 
ask that the Reviewer evaluate his request only on the basis of that 
evidence, and to ignore arguments that have to do with setting up an 
Ubuntu translation team.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list