RFC 1766 (was: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs to outdated...)

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@compuserve.com)
Date: Thu Aug 10 2000 - 12:09:00 EDT

Mike Brown <mbrown@corp.webb.net> wrote:

>> I don't see anything in RFC 1766 that hardcodes it to the
>> 1988 versions of either 639 or 3166.
> I have taken this discussion off the Unicode list. I only started the
> thread here because I was referencing an earlier post and because ISO
> 639 language code updates were topical a couple months ago. It's not
> particularly relevant to Unicode.

Actually, this is quite relevant to Unicode, and that is why I'm
bringing it back on the list.

Unicode Technical Report #7, "Plane 14 Characters for Language Tags,"
makes a direct reference to RFC 1766:

> A Plane 14 tag string prefixed by U-000E0001 LANGUAGE TAG is specified
> to constitute a language tag. Furthermore, the tag values for the
> language tag are to be spelled out as specified in RFC 1766, making
> use only of registered tag values or of user-defined language tags
> starting with the characters "x-".

If RFC 1766 can be construed by the XML spec as requiring the 1988
revisions of ISO 639 and ISO 3166, rather than newer revisions, then
it can be construed that way by UTR #7 as well. And that means I cannot
conformantly use some of the more recently created language codes such
as "ae" for "Avestan" or country codes such as "ps" for "Palestinian
Territory, Occupied" in Plane 14 language tags.

Can anyone comment on this? If RFC 1766 can realistically be read as
requiring outdated versions of ISO 639 and 3166, then it seems that UTR
#7 should be updated to bypass RFC 1766 entirely and refer directly to
ISO 639 and 3166.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 10 2001 - 17:21:06 EDT