Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha

[Doug Ewell]

ISO 3166-1 Newsletter VI-7, dated 2010-02-22 (but not posted until a few 
days later), announces a name change for code element SH from "Saint 
Helena" to "Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha."  This doesn't 
represent as much of a scope increase as it might seem, since the 
Remarks entry for SH previously stated that the code element "included" 
Ascension Island and the Tristan da Cunha Archipelago.

Normally for us, this simple ISO 3166/MA action would trigger a simple 
change to the Description field for subtag SH.  However, because the 
LTRU WG decided to add the ISO 3166-1 "exceptionally reserved" code 
elements to the Registry -- including AC for Ascension Island and TA for 
Tristan da Cunha -- we have a decision to make.  In addition to making 
the name change for SH, do we also deprecate AC and TA and give each a 
Preferred-Value of SH?

According to RFC 5646, "Usually, the addition of a 'Deprecated' field is 
due to the action of one of the standards bodies, such as ISO 3166, 
withdrawing a code."  Obviously the MA would not have "withdrawn" these 
two code elements, since they were not assigned, only reserved.  It is 
we (LTRU) who chose to put these reserved code elements on an equal 
footing with normal assigned code elements.

My opinion should be clear -- deprecate AC and TA -- but I'll wait to 
hear from others before posting any forms to the list.

--
Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­