Missing subtags 003 and 172

Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Fri Jul 30 22:10:22 CEST 2010

Den 2010-07-30 21.52, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>:

> Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at telia dot com> wrote:
>> As far as I can tell, Mark is right here. Note that the 172 code was not
>> created purely for statistical purposes,
>> but is an actual region (even if somewhat unstable). This is distinct from
>> the codes 199, 432, 722, 778.
> But it's categorized with the "Small island developing States" class of

No, it's listed (there, don't know about the actual standard) as a
subgrouping of "Transition countries". It is not listed *directly* under
"Selected economic and  other groupings". Yes, it says selected,
I don't know what the full list is in the standard.

> This is also the justification for the pending "classical Sanskrit"
> variant; it makes the "classical" qualifier explicit instead of
> implicit, in those (perhaps rare) cases where that is important.

As far as I understand it, sa/san = Classical Sanskrit. See again
http://multitree.linguistlist.org/codes/san. So the variant tag
for Classical Sanskrit does not actually distinguish anything.

> By contrast, what does "language X as used in the CIS" tell anyone, for
> any language X, in any geographical or other context, that either a more
> specific tag like "xx-KZ" or a less specific tag like "xx" would not
> already cover?

Probably nothing, but that is not the issue here.

    /kent k

>  That is my second complaint against 172, the first being
> that UNSD categorizes it as an economic grouping.
> --
> 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