"French part" and "Dutch part" (was: Re: Records and registration forms for BQ, CW, SX, AN)

[Kent Karlsson]

That would be like having (before 1990) an entry for "Germany" and another
for "Deutschland" and then
have "West" and "East" as comments on the respective entries.

I'd be happy with "Dutch Saint Martin" and "French Saint Martin", or with
"North Saint Martin" and
"South Saint Martin", or some such, if it is the parentheses as such that
are bothersome. But everyone
else seem keen on keeping the same names as in the source standard. And then
you need to include
the parenthetical part of the name (as is), otherwise we'd be in the trouble
as said above. (Which,
among other things, would lead to strange translation problems...)

    /Kent K


Den 2010-12-22 22:29, skrev "Mark Davis" <mark at macchiato.com>:

> I think the first description should be without any parenthesized part; that
> is more appropriate for a comment.
> 
> Mark
> 
> — 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
>> 'SX':
>> 
>>> > 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
>> 
>> or
>> 
>> 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
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20101222/cad0e9da/attachment-0001.html>