Missing subtags 003 and 172
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Fri Jul 30 18:36:41 CEST 2010
They are *not* actually the rules.
It is just the 'economic groupings' or 'other groupings' that are excluded
(199, 432, 722, 778). The codes 003 and 172 are macro-geographical or
sub-regions, and are thus to be included.
Here are the rules.
The following rules define which codes are entered into the registry
as valid subtags:
A. UN numeric codes assigned to 'macro-geographical
(continental)' or sub-regions MUST be registered in the
registry. These codes are not associated with an assigned
ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code and represent supra-national areas,
usually covering more than one nation, state, province, or
B. UN numeric codes for 'economic groupings' or 'other
groupings' MUST NOT be registered in the IANA registry and
MUST NOT be used to form language tags.
C. When ISO 3166-1 reassigns a code formerly used for one
country or area to another country or area and that code
already is present in the registry, the UN numeric code for
that country or area MUST be registered in the registry as
described in Section 3.4 and MUST be used to form language
tags that represent the country or region for which it is
defined (rather than the recycled ISO 3166-1 code).
D. UN numeric codes for countries or areas for which there is an
associated ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code in the registry MUST NOT
be entered into the registry and MUST NOT be used to form
language tags. Note that the ISO 3166-based subtag in the
registry MUST actually be associated with the UN M.49 code in
E. For historical reasons, the UN numeric code 830 (Channel
Islands), which was not registered at the time this document
was adopted and had, at that time, no corresponding ISO
3166-1 code, MAY be entered into the IANA registry via the
process described in Section 3.5, provided no ISO 3166-1 code
with that exact meaning has been previously registered.
F. All other UN numeric codes for countries or areas that do not
have an associated ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code MUST NOT be
entered into the registry and MUST NOT be used to form
language tags. For more information about these codes, see
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 08:18, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jul 2010, at 16:08, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> > Do you really think we should drag everyone through the pain of doing
> another RFC just to fix these two codes?
> If those are the rules, those are the rules. In which case this is a matter
> for the other list.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages