Missing subtags 003 and 172
everson at evertype.com
Sat Jul 31 11:26:19 CEST 2010
On 31 Jul 2010, at 09:43, Kent Karlsson wrote:
> Actually, the RFC already says that 003 MUST be registered (see Mark's
> registration form, where the relevant part of the RFC is quoted). You have
> no way of saying no to this one; it is just that this code was missed in
> the LTRU reviews.
If, and only if, everyone is unanimous on this point, I shall agree. Since what Doug considers "debatable" is different from what you have suggested (below) to be "debatable" I am going to insist on unanimity. Without that, then Plan B exists to sort out what may (or may not) have been "missed in the LTRU reviews".
> 172 seems possible to debate, even though I would see it as falling under
> the same MUST in point A of that list, not falling under the MUST NOT in
> point B of same list in the RFC (the MUST NOT covers the codes 199, 432,
> 722, 778, and, as I read it, only those four codes in the current M.49).
> But it seems the request to register 172 might be withdrawn, and since
> it seems to fall between the MUST and MUST NOT I have no objection to
> not registering it.
> (830, the (British) Channel Islands, briefly mentioned in this thread, isn't
> covered by either of those two points of MUST vs. MUST NOT in the RFC; but
> there is no request to register 830 even though it is "missing" in LSR.)
> /Kent K
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages