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

From: JFC Morfin (
Date: Wed Nov 07 2007 - 23:14:29 CST

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

    Dear Debbie,
    It is obviously of interest to everyone to know if as a Unicode
    member and the author of ISO 639-6, you hold the same opinion as Mark
    Davis on behalf of the BSI. Moreover this opinion seems to contradict
    the initial WG-LTRU Charter? I start having some difficulty
    understanding if the IANA is the reference for the CLDR or the CLDR
    the reference for the IANA. Or is it a third attempt to object ISO
    3166-1:2006? This would be very concerning for interoperability now
    it has been confirmed and is being used as the central
    regalian/linguistic referent IRT WTO TBT and other international
    multilingual ontologies and Drafts.

    Also, was the use of "QU" by Unicode reported to ISO 3166/MA as per
    ISO 3166 part 8: the text sent by Unicode should document the reasons
    and conditions of the private use of "QU".

    People interested in the way BCP47 (as currently implemented by the
    IESG) permits to support EU may want to refer to the
    "" debate on "en-eu" ("en-eu" and
    "wg-ltru" on Google best permits to select the different exchanges
    and documents).

    At 03:30 08/11/2007, Mark Davis wrote:

    >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
    >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 spec.
    >Ltru mailing list

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Nov 07 2007 - 23:17:17 CST