"French part" and "Dutch part" (was: Re: Records and registration forms for BQ, CW, SX, AN)
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Wed Dec 22 22:29:53 CET 2010
I think the first description should be without any parenthesized part; that
is more appropriate for a comment.
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 13:17, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> On Fri Dec 17 21:21:35 CET 2010, I wrote about ISO 3166-1 code element
> > The ISO 3166 newsletter and the resources available from the MA's Web
> > site give both "Sint Maarten" and "Sint Maarten (Dutch part)" as the
> > official name. I have contacted ISO 3166/MA to get a definitive
> > answer.
> I have not yet received a reply from the MA, and in the meantime, it
> turns out that Newsletter VI-1 (November 2007), which introduced code
> element 'MF', is also inconsistent about whether the name of that entity
> is "Saint Martin" or "Saint Martin (French part)". When we added subtag
> 'MF' to the Registry, we used the shorter form as the Description field.
> We should probably be consistent with 'MF' and 'SX' and use one of these
> pairs of descriptions:
> MF - Saint Martin
> SX - Sint Maarten
> MF - Saint Martin (French part)
> SX - Sint Maarten (Dutch part)
> Please send your preference to the list. The second option would
> require modifying the existing record for 'MF', which is very little
> work, but more than zero.
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages