Adding code equivalents
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Fri Dec 11 17:29:11 CET 2009
I agree that it would have been good to add the equivalents, not only for
those but for the others where possible. That is, when we see "eng-840" (and
these codes *do* occur in the wild), we can canonicalize to en-US. We are
doing that in CLDR, and I think it would have been productive to add to
However, it would take a revision to do that, which I doubt we are up for.
And while the Deprecated and Preferred Value does provide a mechanism that
does work, I suspect that people would probably like a different term than
Deprecated for such items, to indicate that they are not just not in
canonical form, but are actually invalid -- but that they can be turned into
valid by replacing by the preferred value.
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 04:19, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.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 time.
> /kent k
> As for Wikipedia, the conformance to IETF language tags for
> Wikipedia "labels" is far from complete.
> For instance:
> simple, bat-sng, roa-tara, roa-rup, fiu-vro, map-bms, zh-classical,
> and cbk-zam aren't IANA language tags. Here I'm just picking those
> that stand out clearly.
> Another example is that "arc" (639: Imperial Aramaic, used 700-300 BCE)
> is used by Wikipedia for Assyrian Neo-Aramaic ("aii" with macrolanguage
> "syr" in 639-3). I'm sure there are more oddities.
> Den 2009-12-11 07.59, skrev "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>:
> > Michael(tm) Smith scripsit:
> >> This is a request to add the retired tag "eml" to the IANA
> >> language-subtag registry as a grandfathered tag. I realize this is
> >> an odd request; for the rationale, see "6. Any other relevant
> >> information" below.
> > I can't see adding it as a grandfathered tag, but there are plenty of
> > retired/deprecated tags in the registry now with more to come, and I
> > think there's a case that the 145 639-3 code elements that were retired
> > while LTRU labored should be inserted now. I can't find anything in
> > RFC 5646 preventing us from creating pre-deprecated entries.
> > ...
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages