> From: ietf-languages-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ietf-languages- > bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly > > > The point is that under RFC 3066, > > > the bilingual ISO language and country code lists are > > > considered definitive. > > > > That is nowhere stated or even suggested in RFC 3066. > > RFC 3066 section 2.2 states, in part: > > - All 2-letter subtags are interpreted according to assignments found > in ISO standard 639, "Code for the representation of names of > languages" [ISO 639], or assignments subsequently made by the ISO > 639 part 1 maintenance agency or governing standardization bodies. > > and has a similar statement regarding ISO 3166. > > "interpreted according to assignments found in" certainly > sounds as if the ISO lists are considered definitive for > their respective categories of subtags, since their > interpretation is specified as that given in those lists. > I don't see how the RFC 3066 text can be interpreted > otherwise. RFC 3066 indicates that the *interpretation* is determined by the source ISO standards. You were discussing display names. (Though, now that I've shown that display names are out of scope, you appear to be attempting to change things as though you had been discussing definitions.) Peter Constable Microsoft Corporation _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf