Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Shelf life of data

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:57:26 -0800

Codes eliminated and not reassigned after RFC 1766 came into effect should be in the registry. Period.

Codes prior to 1995 (or 1988 if you go with the reference's date) are really the question. I'd support going back to 1988 with codes, since the reference in RFC 1766 and 3066 is unclear and I well remember the days before the Web (when getting code lists was an arcane art and not a science).

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: dimanche 27 mars 2005 22:58
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Shelf life of data
> 
> Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
> 
> >> There's nothing magic about 10 years.
> >
> > For our purposes the last 10 years would allow us to get rid
> > of the A-list country codes (after 1988, before RfC 1766):
> >
> > BU, DD, FX, NT, SU, TP, YD, YU, ZR.
> 
> FX was withdrawn in 1997, TP in 2002, YU in 2003, ZR in 1997.
> 
> "Getting rid of" these codes -- or, for that matter, the other five you
> mentioned, which WERE withdrawn before 1995 -- will not significantly
> improve the registry, but they may render some valid RFC 1766/3066 codes
> invalid.  Group members, can we please come to a decision on this?
> 
> -Doug Ewell
>  Fullerton, California
>  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:11:10 +0200

>be in the registry. Period.

Yes.

>Codes prior to 1995 (or 1988 if you go with the reference's date) are 
>really the question. I'd support going back to 1988 with codes, since the 
>reference in RFC 1766 and 3066 is unclear and I well remember the days 
>before the Web (when getting code lists was an arcane art and not a science).

Yes. Would you have a dated list we could use as a reference?
Or would someone have one no one can dispute?

We started using alpha-3 by mid-77 and formalized it in oct 1978 (Mike 
Rude); and alpha-2 in 1981. Earlier entries are probably not necessary, 
unless for archives, historics and experience/testing.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:22:22 -0800

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

>> really the question. I'd support going back to 1988 with codes, since
>> the reference in RFC 1766 and 3066 is unclear and I well remember the
>> days before the Web (when getting code lists was an arcane art and
>> not a science).
>

That's why it's important to have a publicly available registry that
everyone can turn to, instead of leaving it to each user or app to
figure out which codes are valid.

Now that Peter Constable has a copy of ISO 3166-3, it is possible to
verify the information I've gotten from Clive Feather's page (I really
need to touch base with Clive, BTW).  So far, everything appears good.

> We started using alpha-3 by mid-77 and formalized it in oct 1978
> (Mike Rude); and alpha-2 in 1981. Earlier entries are probably not
> necessary, unless for archives, historics and experience/testing.

I'm not sure who "we" is in this case, but ISO 3166 has always had
alpha-2 codes since its debut in 1974, and language tags under RFC 1766
and 3066 have always used them, never the alpha-3 country codes.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 10:31:14 +0200

>and 3066 have always used them, never the alpha-3 country codes.

"We" is the world at large. Started in Feb. 1971 as a private service and 
became FCC licensed, ITU sponsored common understanding/agreements by 
monopolies in 77. History is interesting when it can teach for the future. 
I think this is what is happening with Multilingual Internet, of which 
langtags are the very first step.

1. It started using alpha-3 codes for public monopolies, plus US 
International Record Carriers logos (ITT, WUI, etc.). 2 letters codes were 
accepted for refilers (telex operators refilling traffic into the packet 
switch network as did the Internet communities further on). They were just 
cut and pasted for ARPANET ccTLD (RFC 920).

2. IRT languages. First tests of language support were with French, German, 
etc. languages in 76/78 then more seriously with 82/83 with EEC and ESA and 
non Latin with Kokusai Tymshare and KDD. C&W had some effort made in 84/85 
with Chinese test services in HK. Tests with French and German Videotex 
were without problem in 84/86.  Israeli had something in Hebrew at their 
Chief Scientist office in 1985. Arabic was also tested at that time by 
Egyptian PTT. OTE in Athens shown me a rudimentary service, probably in 
1985. EBCDIC code was supported from the very beginning but not permitted 
for a long and abandoned when OSI started being supported.

3. For consistency with these past archives we should include all the past 
codes in the first base, so this is settled once for all. On-Line public 
documents started with NLM Bethesda. Then there were quick development by 
Dialog, Lockheed and a few other large US information services and the 
Diane members in Europe. They were mostly in American, English and French 
(France and Canada).

It is fun, when you stabilize something to be able to support everything 
down to its very roots. But also, it provides more occasions to test the 
way the adopted solution stands table changes.

BTW IRT ISO 3166-3 we will have a copyright problem that has to be 
addressed in the Draft.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 08:31:08 -0800

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

> 3. For consistency with these past archives we should include all the
> past codes in the first base, so this is settled once for all.

We're not trying to maintain compatibility with every country coding
system ever invented, just the one used for language tags.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:35:17 +0200

>system ever invented, just the one used for language tags.

The ultimate target is to facilitare the exchange goods and services 
through the elimination of technical barriers to trade and to foster the 
human cultural development through a through multingual internet, something 
the IETF has never been good at - due to the Internet default parameters 
logic I documented. And IAB demonstrated by the choice of its priorities in 
TFC 3869. This is the reason why we need the support from other experiences 
and motivation by new demands from NGN and WSIS. If ISO is not enough, any 
other adequate subtag source is to be supported.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 18:47:10 -0800

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

> through the elimination of technical barriers to trade and to foster
> the human cultural development through a through multingual internet,
> something the IETF has never been good at - due to the Internet
> default parameters logic I documented. And IAB demonstrated by the
> choice of its priorities in TFC 3869. This is the reason why we need
> the support from other experiences and motivation by new demands from
> NGN and WSIS. If ISO is not enough, any other adequate subtag source
> is to be supported.

You're reading a different charter from the one I'm reading, that's for
sure.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 21:37:23 -0800

> BTW IRT ISO 3166-3 we will have a copyright problem that has to be

Or, more precisely, there is a *potential* copyright issue that needs to
be handled properly so it doesn't *become* a problem.

For all the other standards, the code list is freely available over the
Internet but the standard itself must be purchased.  ISO 3166-3 is the
only one where even the code list is not free.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:10:35 -0500

> only one where even the code list is not free.

We are not planning to reprint the code list; we are planning to use the
information in the code list to make something new.  The fact that a cookbook
is copyright doesn't mean that the copyright owner can control who can make
dishes according to the recipes.

IANAL, TINLA.

-- 
John Cowan  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com  [email-masked]
Economists were put on this planet to make astrologers look good.
        --Leo McGarry

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 23:50:46 +0200

At 04:47 30/03/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
> > The ultimate target is to facilitare the exchange of goods and services
> > the human cultural development through a multingual internet,
> > default parameters logic I documented, and IAB demonstrated by the
> > choice of its priorities in RFC 3869. This is the reason why we need

???
I only read the Charter, the RFC, ISO and WSIS.
jfc