Subject: [Ltru] [psg.com #1034] Add region subtags 034 and 143, delete 062

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 22:55:54 -0700

I've created a ticket for the following item, but apparently messed up
the part where it gets automatically posted to the list.  Oops.

Please refer to the ticket number if you wish to address this item.
Remember that this ticket is against the initial registry, not the
draft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
In January 2005, the UN Statistics Division revised their list of
macrogeographical codes, deleting 062 ("South-central Asia") and
replacing it with 034 ("Southern Asia") and 143 ("Central Asia").  The
two new codes cover exactly the same countries as the old code; the
difference is that the former Soviet "Stans" -- KZ, KG, TJ, TM, and
UZ -- have been moved to the new "Central Asia" category.

Modifying the initial LTRU registry before "Date B" to match the current
UN list would have no effect on existing language tags, since numeric
region subtags were not valid under RFC 3066.

Shall the initial LTRU registry be modified to (a) add region subtags
034 and 143 and (b) delete region subtag 062?

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 18:31:04 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> Did I miss anything?
> Delete 003.

Yes.  Thank you.

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 07:05:50 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> CY and GE as Western Asia are somewhat dubious.

Perhaps, but we are not in the business of correcting the UN
classifications, and in any case the registry does not use them.  It
simply provides subtags like 145 for "Western Asia," and leaves open the
question of what that means.

> The most
> useful macro-code is es-419, otherwise I'd propose to delete
> the macro-region codes, who on earth needs 001 ?
>
> P.S., okay, tlh-001, because most of tlh would be elsewhere.

Mark Davis once suggested a possible use case for 001: to distinguish a
language variety "suitable for worldwide use" from one whose regional
scope was unspecified.

We don't want to get into the business of picking and choosing the
region codes we happen to like and discarding the rest.  The only case
where we do anything like this, and I believe it is completely
justified, is in excluding the entire category of codes for "selected
economic and other groupings," on the basis that they have no
conceivable relation to language usage.  As Addison characterized it
once, "English for the 10 poorest nations."