deprecated subtag 'bjq' and others

Doug Ewell doug at
Fri Aug 5 19:02:46 CEST 2011

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> Part 4 of changes
> 1.  Regarding 'bib' ("Bisa", "Bissa")
> Identifier:	bib
> Names:	 Bisa
> Bissa
> {QUESTION:  Should Bisa or Bissa be first?; Bissa was the original name provided, and I tend like you to think it should go first, but the registry has Bisa first:
> }
> Do whatever you feel best here (leaving it "Bissa" first is fine with me).

The normative data file '' shows Bissa as the
reference name, while '' shows both
names, in alphabetical order, as expected.  The order in which names
appear on the Web lookup pages (also alphabetical) is irrelevant.

You can also see this effect by looking up 'zza', which has six names,
using the Web interface and looking at the data files.  "Zaza", which is
fifth alphabetically, is the reference name.

This has nothing to do with what I feel is best; it is spelled out in
RFC 5646, Section 3.1.5:

   "For fields of type 'language', the first 'Description' field
   appearing in the registry corresponds whenever possible to the
   Reference Name assigned by ISO 639-3.  This helps facilitate cross-
   referencing between ISO 639 and the registry."

> 2.  As for [tie]'s having a change date under item 6 of 2010-05-18, the others showing this date are all in the first set of changes
> I assume these are the ones you are referring to.

Yes, these have all been corrected.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | | @DougEwell ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list