> Date: 2004-12-13 02:05 > From: "Peter Constable" <petercon@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, ietf@xxxxxxxx > > > If for whatever reason ISO and the UN decided that "US" should > > > be used to designate the country of France[...] > > The only way that would be likely to happen would be if > > there were no longer a "US" *and* if the ISO and UN > > representatives of France were to initiate a request for > > such a change.[...] > This scenario is not hypothetical; it actually occurred in the case of > CS. In the case of "CS", but *NOT* "US" a country had quite some time earlier ceased to exist. That is what makes your "US" scenario hypothetical. > This is a situation we do not intend to repeat. That is precisely what would be repeated, and the problem would remain. "CS" currently means "Serbia and Montenegro", and its use in accordance with RFC 3066 has precisely that meaning. Changing "CS" to mean something else at some future time (if/when the proposed draft goes into effect) would result in at least as many different definitions as exist at present, and adds yet another time epoch that needs to be considered in order to determine the meaning of "CS". > > > The usability flaw in treating ISO 639 and ISO 3166 as > human-readable is > > > evident in the confusion between ja and JP (or is it jp and JA?), [...] > It is not uncommon for users to confuse "JA" and "JP". Which clearly demonstrates why mere codes in the absence of definitions associated with the codes is a pointless proposition. And it illustrates the fact that the only practical way for a code to become associated with a particular piece of text is by way of the associated definition (or something derived from it) rather than directly. > > > As for what is silly, if the UN country ID for Canada changed to > > > CN (and that for PRC changed to something else)[....] > > And it is precisely because of such problems that it is > > as unlikely to happen as your hypothetical FR->US change. > > Again, not hypothetical at all. Last time I checked, "US" didn't mean France, and "CN" didn't mean Canada -- I suggest that you might want to brush up on the definition of hypothetical, as it is difficult to have a rational discussion unless we're in agreement on basic definitions (just as it is difficult to have effective communications about what language is indicated by a code without agreement on the *definitions* of the codes). > If you're really wanting to know what the meaning of "CS" would be per > the proposed draft, the proposal is that it will forever remain valid > with the meaning "Czechoslovakia" as it was originally defined in ISO > 3166. But the current meaning under RFC 3066 is quite different. What about maintaining the "stability" of that meaning? > > I haven't specifically discussed "display names"; that is your > > assertion, and not my basis for objection. > > You didn't use the term "display names", but it is clearly implied by > your reference to bilingual implementations. Your inference (which you incorrectly claim as my implication) is different from my claim. My claim is that under RFC 3066, the definitions of the country and language codes is available in two languages (yes, it's true -- but irrelevant to that point -- that the IANA registered complete tags do not have that characteristic), and that the proposed registry would lack that characteristic of the current BCP (unnecessarily). > > I refer to the > > definitions and the need to map to and from those definitions > > at either end of the communications channel. ÂWhether or not > > that happens by "display" is incidental to the issue of the > > number of languages that the definitions are provided in. > > Definitions in multiple languages are not a requisite to establishing > the denotation of a coded element. True but irrelevant to the point. We now have definitions of specific types of elements (viz. country and language tags) in multiple languages, and the objection is to the unnecessary removal of that characteristic. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf