Re: The "QU" territory/region code (was New Public Review Issue: #116 Proposed Update UTS #35 LDML)

From: Mark Davis (
Date: Wed Nov 07 2007 - 20:30:13 CST

  • Next message: Mark Davis: "Re: The "QU" territory/region code (was New Public Review Issue: #116 Proposed Update UTS #35 LDML)"

    On 11/7/07, Philippe Verdy <> wrote:
    > Mark Davis wrote:
    > > This is a misreading of the text. One of the reasons for the last
    > > revision of BCP 47 was to make it absolutely clear when codes were
    > > valid or not. The valid codes are all and only those that are in
    > > EU is not
    > > there (as a region), thus it is not valid.
    > Note that your URL is NOT directly referenced by [BCP47], and the
    > terminology used cannot clearly state that fact. So it is not so clear in
    > the [BCP47] text, as you could use any table shown in the ISO 3166-1/MA
    > website. Note that [BCP47] does not even list [ISO3166-1] as a normative
    > reference, and not even as an informative reference (most probably this
    > was
    > forgotten)!


    I agree that in an ideal world we'd just have the URL in BCP 47, but it
    clearly states that

        The Language Subtag
        Registry maintained by IANA is the source for valid subtags: other
       standards referenced in this section provide the source material for
       that registry.

    So IANA is the source. As far as an user of BCP 47 is concerned, 3166 is
    just a *source* for data, and not all codes defined in 3166 will be valid in
    BCP 47.

    Anyway, the text in [ISO3166-1] allows the Unicode Consortium to request to
    > the ISO 3166-1/MA an authorization to use the "exceptionnally reserved" in
    > LDML and CLDR, even if there's still no agreement without BCP47 (what the
    > IETF wants to restrict for BCP47 would be immediately invalidated by any
    > authorization made by the ISO 3166-1/MA).

    The Unicode Consortium could clearly use EU. No problem there. However, a
    goal of the Unicode CLDR group was and is to be compatible with BCP 47, and
    EU cannot be used there, conformantly.

    That's why I finished my message with this question: did you request such
    > authorization to the ISO 3166-1/MA?

    That is moot, since the goal is compatibility with BCP 47, not with 3166.

    There is some background on BCP 47 on Addison's site (; that might be easier to understand than the


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 07 2007 - 20:32:24 CST