Doug Ewell wrote:
> Since 1999. That is helpful, and it provides definitive
> guidance for some code elements, but unfortunately the others
> (back to 1988, which is our "Date A," and further back to the
> mid-1970s) are available only for a price, or through
> unofficial sources.
Older stuff is their "initial" 3166-3, it's not as old as the
other parts. See their iso3166-past-present-and-future page:
http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/04background-on-iso-3166/iso3166-past-present-and-future.html
3166-3 was created 1997-99, the newsletters cover all updates.
One of my several "date A" proposals was "5th edition" (1999).
Somebody here ordered and got it, and IIRC the result was that
your unofficial source of code changes was complete.
> this WG's draft seeks to maintain compatibility with tags
> generated under RFC 1766, which referenced the 1988 version
> of ISO 3166, so we allow subtags based on ISO 3166 code
> elements going back to 1988.
Are you talking with me or for the press ? I know what we did,
in theory I could find Randy's ticket number, and the article
where he declared consens about "date A". Nobody cared to
produce any tags deprecated before 1995, maybe not one exists,
but we can't be sure.
> DY as a historical code element is just as legitimate as TL.
Not in language tags, it was never valid under 1766 / 3066.
If DYBN was 1977, then it was dead 11 years before 1988, and
18 years before RfC 1766. There are precisely zero reasons
to find it in the wild in 1766 / 3066 / 3066bis language tage.
>> The seven years from 1988 - 1995 are a royal PITA.
> No, they're not. Older deprecated subtags don't cause any
> problems that newer (or future) deprecated subtags won't
> cause. They're a lot like grandfathered tags; if you have
> to support one, supporting 500 is no big deal.
We all discussed this here again and again, of course they
are a PITA because they are blocked for future "recycling".
Nobody can use any future BU in language tags, because it's
blocked by the old BUMM. Unlike DY and NH. BUMM was 1989,
one year after "date A", but still before the WWW was started,
and maybe also before somebody counted 18 letters in I18N.
> If you already have to support TP, there is no additional
> cost to supporting BU.
As far as I'm concerned this error is the main reason why an
LTRU WG was created. Plus the "most perverse tag" issue, and
"Suppress-Script". Anything else is essentially the same as
you (= language tag list) already had it in the old last call.
Bye, Frank
_______________________________________________
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.