[gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org: ICANN Draft Translation Programme open for public comment]

[Peter Constable]

IMO, they should be using BCP 47. Or do they think that distinctions like, e.g., bs-Cyrl vs. bs-Latn can be ignored? Regardless, it's pretty bad when an entity like ICANN isn't even using relevant IETF specifications.


Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
> Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 8:56 AM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: [gnso.secretariat at gnso.icann.org: ICANN Draft Translation
> Programme open for public comment]
>
> Since this draft document, open to comments, talks a lot about human
> languages, I feel it is relevant here.
>
> Do note that the plan for language identifiers, in the current version,
> is ISO 639 (with just ISO 3166 country codes), not BCP 47 :-(