Records and registration forms for BQ, CW, SX, AN

Doug Ewell doug at
Fri Dec 17 23:54:50 CET 2010

Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at telia dot com> wrote:

> (for AN)
> >   Comments: see BQ, CW, and SX
> BQ is (now) part of the Netherlands, while CW and SX are not (IIUC).
> Maybe that need not be mentioned in the registry, or should it?

Perhaps the BQ entry could include:

Comments: see also NL

I'm wondering how relevant this political detail is to language tagging,
considering the distance between Europe and the Antilles.

> We already have:
> Type: region
> Subtag: MF
> Description: Saint Martin
> Added: 2007-11-02
> The description here does not say "(French part)", which I think it should
> have said. See page 3 of

Good catch.  I should ask the MA about that one too.  As with SX, they
have not been consistent about when they include the bit in parentheses
and when they do not.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list