Records and registration forms for BQ, CW, SX, AN
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
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 www.iso.org/iso/newsletter_vi-1.pdf.
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 | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list