Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updating Preferred-Value: field

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2008 23:09:56 -0800

Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:

> I thought this was all trumped (at least in spirit) by 3.4 (10) (D):
>
>      D.  For ISO 3166 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is
>          associated with the same UN M.49 code as another 'region'
>          subtag, then the existing region subtag remains as the
>          preferred value for that region and no new entry is created.
>          A comment MAY be added to the existing region subtag
>          indicating the relationship to the new ISO 3166 code.

I think Randy is completely right here.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:57:36 -0800

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> I find any choice but A to be bizarre. Why should the preexistance of 
> BU -- with the same meaning! -- cause us to do something different 
> with MM than we do with US?
>
> We need to make the appropriate changes to do the expected, reasonable 
> thing.

Then why did we make the original choice that we made?  I'm not opposed 
to doing the expected, reasonable thing, but it seems to me that we 
should at least investigate *why* we made that decision before going 
ahead and overturning it.  I don't think the answer will be "because we 
were clueless and had our heads in the sand."

---

From: CE Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:47:41 -0500

Hi,
From: "Mark Davis" <mark.davis at icu-project.org> 
> Let's suppose that ISO in 2010 changes US to UX and MM to BU.
In the case where MM was originally BU, then,I am waivering between the following (choice A? B?):
 
MM => BU
(that is, goes back to BU)US => UX
 
and just inserting a comment, as provided for, as you all have noted, in:
> 3.4 (10) (D): >   D.  For ISO 3166 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is >       associated with the same UN M.49 code as another 'region' >       subtag, then the existing region subtag remains as the >       preferred value for that region and no new entry is created. >      A comment MAY be added to the existing region subtag >      indicating the relationship to the new ISO 3166 code.
 
I think there are cases when it might be worthwhile to switch back to the original subtag; but a comment would be in order anyway as some documents online will be tagged MM.
(P. S., Sorry; I guess I got this into the editorial comments field, because I had a question about the wording.)
 
--C. E. Whitehead
[email-masked]