Mike Brown <mbrown@corp.webb.net> wrote:
> Correct, but RFC 1766 doesn't, in turn, allow for successors to ISO
> 639 and ISO 3166, at least not by a strict interpretation of its
> formal language. And to date, there still is no successor to RFC
> 1766.
The successors to ISO 639 and ISO 3166 are newer versions of 639 and
3166. ISO standards don't get new numbers when they are revised, as
RFCs do.
I don't see anything in RFC 1766 that hardcodes it to the 1988 versions
of either 639 or 3166. The 1988 versions are cited in the "References"
section, but that is just to provide a bibliographically complete
citation based on the versions available at the time (March 1995).
It would make no sense in any event for an application using RFC 1766
(including, but not limited to, XML) to be artificially limited to the
language or country codes set at a fixed point in the past.
-Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT