Subject: [Ltru] Re: Dates A and B redux

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 09:17:43 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> Doug, I _know_ what "date A" is, I was here, remember ?

Yes, sorry.  I just wanted to make sure everyone was on the same page.

>  From my POV it was the most conservative choice, there
> were no language tags before 1995, nobody had a reason
> to use anything deprecated before RfC 1766 - unless he
> had an old copy of ISO 3166-1 region codes without the
> updates.  Rough consensus was to be paranoid about this
> hypothetical case => ready, "date A" is 1988.

See my other message.  Non-updated copies of the standard and unofficial
code lists were much more common than official subscribed copies of the
standard.  (How many people, even now, know about the special meaning of
"OO" and "OOO" in ISO 3166?  You can really only find out about those by
reading the standard.)

>> Changing the rules about dates would require changing
>> the text of draft-registry and/or draft-initial.
>
> If the rules are clear why did you ask ?

I didn't ask about Date B.  I asked, somewhat rhetorically, because
Addison responded to Kent:

>> 2. Will all the "added" dates be changed to that of the date when
>> the actual registry goes "live"? (As well for the initial value
>> of the "File-Date".)
>
> No. The initial value of File-Date should change, but not the added
> dates.

and this came as a surprise to me, based on my understanding of Date B
and File-Date and Added.  So far nobody's responded (it's a nice
weekend).

> I'm fine with
> your strategy to use "date B" everywhere.  Addison did
> not propose another strategy for the "ILSR", his remark
> was about the future function of "Added" dates for all
> registry updates after "date B".

Kent asked what would happen "when the actual registry goes 'live'."
That could only refer to the initial registry.  I think everyone
understands that the Added dates for existing subtags won't change after
the registry goes live, and indeed draft-registry mandates that.

>> Claiming that a given subtag was added to the registry
>> 10 or 20 or 30 years ago before the registry was even
>> created is also ugly IMHO.
>
> The idea is fine - we've used past modifications in the
> sources to simulate the effects on an imaginary registry
> started at various potential "date A".  But in practice
> getting these "Added" dates right would be too difficult.

I wish we did have exact dates for these things.

>> Date B has already been picked.  Read item 2 in Section
>> 2 of draft-initial, and then go back and read it again.
>
> If you don't want answers you don't like beause you already
> have your own answers don't ask.  I only told you what I'd
> do about it, delay "date B" as long as possible, but not
> beyond potential major changes of the sources, if it causes
> inconsistencies with the "last called" texts.

I didn't ask about Date B.  Really.

We can never tell when there will be "potential major changes" to the
source standards.  With the notable exception of CS, which ISO 3166/MA
apparently knew would cause problems, the MAs don't generally tell us
when there is a change in the works.  They simply announce the change
after it is approved (or in the case of UNSD, post it on the Web with no
announcement).

>> If that date is delayed until GG and IM and JE are added
>> to ISO 3166-1, then those subtags will be added to the
>> initial registry.  It is as simple as that.
>
> It's not, it could invalidate parts of your chapter 4, in
> the "worst" (= best) case completely.  It would also affect
> the text in 3.3 point 11 in 3066bis.

Section 4 of draft-initial is essentially just a code list, an
"unregistry" as you once called it.  Removing 831 through 833 would not
cause me any grief personally, and we can be fairly sure we will not
have to remove 830.

The editors of draft-registry have essentially mirrored that list in
Section 3.3, point 11, and they can decide whether amending that section
would cause problems.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:33:19 -0400

> "OO" and "OOO" in ISO 3166?  You can really only find out about those by

Not I, for sure.  Whatever it is, it isn't in the draft registry.  Should
it be?  What does it mean?

-- 
Work hard,                                      John Cowan
play hard,                                      [email-masked]
die young,                                      http://www.reutershealth.com
rot quickly.                                    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:34:00 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> How many people, even now, know about the special meaning
> of "OO" and "OOO" in ISO 3166?

Certainly not me - deja vu, you already explained this some
months ago, didn't you ?

For X.25 "OOO" is the "out of order" protocol state... ;-)

>| The initial value of File-Date should change, but not
>| the added dates.

> and this came as a surprise to me, based on my understanding
> of Date B and File-Date and Added.

Your understanding is correct.  I think Addison's answer was
about the registry after "date B".  You've always updated all
"Added" dates.  We discussed it here, because my simple Xref-
"validator" noted all "Added after Deprecated" dates.

> So far nobody's responded (it's a nice weekend).

At least you have my answer.  No big issue, you could always
change it later.  But there's no serious alternative to what
you have done, hunting historical "Added" dates is no option.

> Removing 831 through 833 would not cause me any grief
> personally, and we can be fairly sure we will not have to
> remove 830.

Checking, yes, 830 is still there.  And so far no iSO 3166-1
newsletter in 2005.  The language tag reviewer could try to
subscribe the language tag list.
                                  Bye, Frank

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 00:05:22 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

>> See my other message.  Non-updated copies of the standard and
>> unofficial code lists were much more common than official subscribed
>> copies of the standard.  (How many people, even now, know about the
>> special meaning of "OO" and "OOO" in ISO 3166?  You can really only
>> find out about those by reading the standard.)
>
> Not I, for sure.  Whatever it is, it isn't in the draft registry.
> Should it be?  What does it mean?

I thought so.

"OO" and "OOO" are special escape codes to indicate a switch to a
different coding system.  We don't have to worry about them in the
registry because they are not assigned in ISO 3166, and because
draft-registry defines only one "coding system," with a choice of
registered or private-use subtags.

As described in a draft update to ISO 3166-1:

"8.1.4 Extended facility of user-assigned code elements (escape code
element)

"If the number of user-assigned code elements in 8.1.3 is not sufficient
to cover a particular user requirement, the alphabetic code elements OO
or OOO or the numeric code element 000 are to be utilized to indicate
that code elements other than those defined in this part of ISO 3166 are
used."

Or as paraphrased by Clive Feather:

"The codes OO, OOO, and 000 are designated for use as "escape codes" to
indicate that additional codes are being used."

I can't find any previous message about this in my "Sent" box.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 14:55:19 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> "OO" and "OOO" are special escape codes to indicate a switch
> to a different coding system.  We don't have to worry about
> them in the registry because they are not assigned in ISO
> 3166

Odd, on their decoder page "OO" is simply white => unassigned.
 
> I can't find any previous message about this in my "Sent"

Probably I've seen it on Clive's ISO 3166 page.  Bye, Frank