Subject: [Ltru] Re: Question

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 08:42:23 -0800

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

> IBTD, a "get rid of old nonsense" strategy for a definition
> of "old" = before RfC 1766 was published allows to capture
> the _actual_ state of the relevant standards.

Mark just told you that users continued to use the old codes 'in,' 'iw',
and 'ji' after they had been deprecated.  The fact that an ISO code is
deprecated does not mean everyone immediately stops using it.

> Nobody needs an old 639-typo like "jw" in the Internet, it's
> a zombie like UNICODE-1-1-UTF-7 (yes, I got some mails with
> this beast in 2003 and 2004)

Are you aware that 'jw' was not documented as an error by ISO 639 RA/JAC
until 2002?

>> (a) because of the instability of such sources
>
> True.  The tactic to get stability by a "frozen copy" is not
> necessarily convincing, at least not for the region codes.

Many of us are convinced.

>> we do have to impose some order in those cases where there
>> is a conflict.
>
> Or to accept the instability and offer a stable alternative:
> 3166-1 as it is before 3166-1 as it was (instable), stable
> version UN M49 as it is or was.  3166-3 as guide to populate
> some canonical values (in addition to UN M49).

Frank, please write a counterproposal.  I don't think it's accomplishing
anything to continue saying "Or we could totally change the way country
codes are handled" without a document that the WG can discuss.

>> It would be safest not to put it at date of publication,
>> simply because that take the risk (probably small, but
>> unfortunately real) that the source standards would redefine
>> a code after the draft has been discussed and approved, but
>> before publication.
>
> Then let's always take the state of the art at the date of
> the creation of the future draft registry I-Ds based on the
> future registry draft I-Ds.

Actually I like that idea.

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

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:17:27 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> Are you aware that 'jw' was not documented as an error by
> ISO 639 RA/JAC until 2002?

No, it wasn't clear whether this was a typo fixed 1988 or a
typo fixed 2001, or maybe an old typo fixed long ago but now
officially documented.

The in, iw, etc. cases are different, they were no typos.

Actually it's not very important, do whatever you like, but
don't use it to justify FQ or RH later when we come to the
region codes. ;-)

> Frank, please write a counterproposal.  I don't think it's
> accomplishing anything to continue saying "Or we could
> totally change the way country codes are handled" without a
> document that the WG can discuss.

I've already done that using the worst case CS as an example
how it would work for a 3066bis-my-way introduced about 1989.
Addison added the 3066bis-your-way version for the same case.

IMHO these examples were clear, in a 3066bis-your-way all 
obsolete ISO 3166-1 codes are preserved using UN numbers for
some new regions, in a 3066-bis-my-way ISO 3166-1 is used as
is, if somebody wants a stable tag (guaranteed for centuries) 
he's forced to use UN numbers instead of ISO 3166-1.

>> let's always take the state of the art at the date of
>> the creation of the future draft registry I-Ds based on
>> the future registry draft I-Ds.
 
> Actually I like that idea.

Let's hope that "they" don't deprecate any country code while
we are desperately trying to find a compromise.  We still want
compatibility with anything that was valid under 1766 / 3066.

                            Bye, Frank