ADMIN: Civility and on-topic,
please! (Re: The limit of language codes)
dewell at adelphia.net
Thu Feb 22 08:26:59 CET 2007
CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> I think we can discuss the names GB vs UK
Those are code elements or subtags, not names.
> (but no politics beyond the names) if there is anything we can do
> about them.
There is nothing we (ietf-languages) can do about them. Someone could
lobby ISO or BSI to change it, or could lobby the LTRU group to change
the RFC 4646 rules and allow non-ISO 2-letter region subtags, both of
which I think are terrible ideas and highly unlikely to succeed.
> But I think someone else would have to change this particular name,
code element or subtag
> so it might be a bit off-topic to ask for it here.
It is utterly off-topic. The purpose of this list is to discuss
registration of subtags that are *not* based on external standards.
> So long as the description for the tag
> says that it includes Ireland,
It does not, and should not. Ireland is not part of the United Kingdom.
The existing description "United Kingdom" should be sufficient, as I am
quite sure there is no "United Kingdom" anywhere that does not include
> and assures it gets used properly, in any case, that is most
We (ietf-languages) have no power to assure that any subtag gets used
properly. Users will do what they do. We can assign Description fields
that make things as clear as possible. But again, after 80 years in its
current configuration, how many people truly do not understand that the
term "United Kingdom" includes Northern Ireland?
Sorry for responding.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages