> AFAIK the Unicode consortium plans a registry of locales, stuff > like de-DE etc. I hope that your ideas are compatible with > whatever they do (I've no idea, sorry) The Unicode consortium has already a registry of locales, at www.unicode.org/cldr/ For the language part of the locale IDs*, we are using an extension of 3066, and plan to switch to 3066 bis once it is released. There are no compatibility problems; in fact, we are really hoping it is done in time to use in the March release of CLDR 1.3. *(I say 'part' since locales may specify more than language) âMark ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frank Ellermann" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: <ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ietf@xxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 21:55 Subject: Re: draft-phillips-langtags-08, process, specifications, "stability", and extensions > Addison Phillips [wM] wrote: > > > http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-phillips-langtags-09.html > > Your comments on that would be appreciated. > > The source of en-NH is still unclear, I don't have a copy of > ISO 3166 3rd ed. 1988. Even if somebody is willing to pay for > it he may have a problem to get exactly this edition (?) > > Maybe use the existing IANA ccTLD registry instead of ISO 3166: > > Garbage in, garbage out, but at least I know where to find the > IANA garbage ;-). With your 1988 edition you have a problem > for TP (now TL), DD (now a part of DE), PS (introduced after > 1988 IIRC), etc. I don't check Yemen and Zaire. If you really > must use an old ISO 3166 edition use the 5th edition 1999 (they > commited net suicide with CS in 2003). > > ISO 3166 has numerous non(sense)-country codes, not only clear > cases like FX. Try ccTLDs, there you'd also get weird stuff > like SJ or AQ, but at least nobody plans to recycle old ccTLDs. > > > Frank has raised some good issues: I believe I responded to > > his message. > > Sorry, I somehow missed it, or it was very recently on the IETF > "language" list (I only look into "general" regularly, skipping > the admin stuff it's a quiet list). > > > The draft specifies ONE mechanism, just like RFC 3066, and > > notes that more specialized processing is possible. > > Okay. Maybe use en-boont as a Caveat, where en-US-boont would > be missed with your algorithm. That also covers my de-CH-1996 > problem. You could add se-Latn-AX as second example, because > it's not only a potential problem for country codes, it's also > a potential problem for scripts, when the script is more or > less irrelevant, because it's the default for the language. > > And while you're at it maybe add some words about i-default, > if I got it right you would expect IANA to mark i-default as > "obsoleted by UND" (?) It's one of these odd cases, probably > you also expect IANA to mark i-klingon as "obsoleted by TLH". > > Actually that's already the case with RfC 3066. That's strange, > Harald registered i-default (December 2001), and he also wrote > RfC 3066 (January 2001), and RfC 3066 says that all i-whatever > should be deprecated as soon as an ISO 639 code is available... > Maybe TLH and UND were introduced later. > > > The current draft REPLACES RFC 3066. > > AFAIK the Unicode consortium plans a registry of locales, stuff > like de-DE etc. I hope that your ideas are compatible with > whatever they do (I've no idea, sorry) > > Bye, Frank > > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-languages mailing list > Ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages > _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf