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 - 20:19:28 CST

  • Next message: JFC Morfin: "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)!
    > 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).
    > That's why I finished my message with this question: did you request such
    > authorization to the ISO 3166-1/MA?


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 07 2007 - 20:32:27 CST