How about fixing the problem in a more rule-oriented fashion. We register NO M.49 subtags that are not macro-geographic regions. We permit them, by rule, to be registered via the registration process if someone feels the need for them and ISO 3166 has failed to act (for whatever reason). That neatly disposes of all the M.49/ISO 3166 mismatches, now and in the future, in one go. Addison Addison P. Phillips Globalization Architect, Quest Software Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group Internationalization is not a feature. It is an architecture. > -----Original Message----- > From: ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces at lists.ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Doug Ewell > Sent: 2005年6月13日 19:47 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1026] what to do about Guernsey and Jersey > > Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote: > > > I agree with the suggestion that a new M.49 numeric ID should not be > > registered immediately, but that some time be given to permit the ISO > > 3166-MA to add a corresponding entry, if they're going to take such > > action within a reasonable time. I'm not sure what that reasonable > > time should be; one year seems like a long time, but I don't know how > > much time they typically require. > > I have no problem with the theory here, but I think if we wanted to > adopt such an approach, we would have to spell out the time frame rather > precisely. > > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru at lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.