Re: RFC 1766 (was: Summary: xml:lang validity and RFC 1766 refs

From: John Cowan (
Date: Thu Aug 10 2000 - 12:44:22 EDT

Doug Ewell wrote:

> 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 requiring outdated versions of ISO 639 and 3166, then it seems that UTR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.

With all due respect to all participants, the claim that RFC 1766 freezes
obsolete versions reminds me of (future Cardinal) Newman's argument in Tract #40,
back when he was still part of the Church of England. Although the 39
Articles denounced "the Romish doctrine of Purgatory", they did not denounce
the Roman doctrine, and clearly Romish != Roman. So believers in the Roman
doctrine might continue to belong to the Anglican Church....

Anyhow, RFC 1766 has other useful things besides pass-through of the ISO
standards, specifically its very own registry that handles languages like
zh-yue (Cantonese) and i-mingo (Mingo).


Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <> Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau, || Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau, || Und trank die Milch vom Paradies. -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)

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