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

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@roadrunner.com)
Date: Thu Nov 08 2007 - 00:57:32 CST

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

    Mark Davis wrote:

    > (In retrospect, I also think it was unproductive to have incomplete
    > M49 codes ( http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm). It
    > wouldn't hurt to add the very few M49 codes that are excluded from BCP
    > 47, even if deprecated, if only to make testing and cross mapping
    > easier.)

    I disagree rather strongly. Non-geographical, non-linguistic groupings
    such as "Landlocked developing countries" and "Transition countries"
    (the modern name for the category once known as "Communist states") have
    no place in language tags or computer locales. 

    --
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
NEW E-MAIL -->  dewell at roadrunner dot com
NEW URL -->  http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 08 2007 - 01:00:16 CST