Re: RFC 1766

Date: Fri Aug 11 2000 - 09:30:21 EDT

>Another problem is that RFCs are not necessarily written with the same
>attention to detail, precision, and completeness as ISO or national
>standards. Some are written very well indeed, but there are no
>guarantees. The present problem with imprecise wording in RFC 1766 is
>evidence of this.

In the case of ISO 639-x, I'd contend that there are some concerns that
result from not enough attention to detail, precision and completeness.
Many of the concerns are also apply to RFC1766 (obviously they would, to
some extent, due to the close relationship to ISO 639-x.) I'll be
discussing this in a paper at IUC17 (session C3).

>Reading RFC 1766, the new I-D that is destined to replace 1766 in the
>near future, and UTR #7 all leads me to conclude that UTRs should
>*definitely* be revised to refer directly to ISO standards whenever
>possible, instead of Internet RFCs,

Personally, I don't think UTR#7 should make any normative reference to any
standard on language tagging. Unicode is a character set/encoding standard,
not a pan-I18N standard (though perhaps some would like to see it expand in
that direction). Unicode should make the plane 14 tag characters available;
how they are utilised should be up to other standards and conventions.

- Peter

Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485
E-mail: <>

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