Subject: [Ltru] Re: DD, YD, and YU (was: Question)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:17:53 -0800

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

>> RFC 1766 and 3066 allowed language tags to contain any code
>> in the 1988 versions of ISO 639 and 3166.
>
> Apparently.  Or maybe Harald forgot to update his references
> in RfC 3066.  Or he's the lucky owner of a 1988 edition, and
> didn't want to pay for a newer edition of ISO 3166.

Doesn't matter.  Compatibility requires that we allow all codes that
were valid in either RFC 1766 *or* 3066.

>> Changing the date to 1995 would add only five more codes
>> (BU, DD, NT, SU, and YD) to the blacklist.  Is that worth
>> violating the agreement set down in RFC 1766?
>
> I'm not sure.  BU, NT, and SU are still visible on the 3166-1
> page.  DD and YD are officially unassigned.  In other words
> they could be assigned to a new region tomorrow when necessary.

So could the others.  Look, we've already agreed (I think) that the
codes withdrawn before 1988 can be removed without sacrificing
compatibility.  That's 15 of the 24 withdrawn codes, or 62%.  I think we
should move on.

> Let's work on some decent "union" / "split" rules for a while,
> that's more important than the two 1988 DD and YD incarnations
> of "old" draft -00 oddities.
>
> A simple fix could be a new rule, that whenever an existing
> (3166-1 CC = UN number) relation for a registered CC is changed
> by the introduction of a new UN number for the CC, then the old
> UN number is added to the registry.
>
> That also proves that the stability in draft -00 is partially
> an illusion.  But at least it doesn't lose complete regions
> like the old DE, YE, or YU.

Personally, I think this is overkill.  I don't think any more
fine-tuning of the repertoire of region subtags is necessary or
justified.

I've said this before, but there is an established history of using ISO
3166-1 alpha-2 codes to represent the country or quasi-country in which
a language (variant) is used.  They're not perfect.  They have flaws.
UN M.49 numeric codes are probably better suited in some ways.  But
almost nobody knows about them; they have no mnemonic value.

The main value of allowing 'DD' as well as 'DE' is that tags in 'DD'
were allowed under RFC 1766.  Yes, I know that means we have a code for
present-day Germany and a code for the former East Germany, but no code
for the former West Germany.  I don't see that as a significant gap in
tagging flexibility.  What does everyone else think?

-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: Wed, 30 Mar 2005 02:11:49 -0500

> compatibility.  That's 15 of the 24 withdrawn codes, or 62%.  I think we

+1

> tagging flexibility.  What does everyone else think?

+1

-- 
It was dreary and wearisome.  Cold clammy winter still held way in this
forsaken country.  The only green was the scum of livid weed on the dark
greasy surfaces of the sullen waters.  Dead grasses and rotting reeds loomed
up in the mists like ragged shadows of long-forgotten summers.
        --"The Passage of the Marshes"          http://www.ccil.org/~cowan