Retired 639-3 codes
doug at ewellic.org
Fri Dec 11 15:33:45 CET 2009
Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
> My preference is to NOT create records in LSR for retired language
> codes that were never in the LSR.
> I see a much stronger case for adding records for three-letter codes
> that have two-letter code equivalents, and also for adding "UK" with
> the preferred value "GB". These were discussed during LTRU (with me in
> the supporting group), but such additions were turned down at the
-1. We have to follow the rules decided upon in LTRU. If there is a
desire to change them, we have to re-charter LTRU and revise RFC 5646.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages