[Ltru] Re: Comorian and other issues

"Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net> Fri, 16 February 2007 15:10 UTC

Received: from [] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HI4jE-0005mJ-WD; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:10:29 -0500
Received: from [] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HI4jD-0005m9-28 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:10:27 -0500
Received: from mta13.mail.adelphia.net ([] helo=mta13.adelphia.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HI4jA-0005iQ-Uk for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:10:27 -0500
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM. 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20070216151020.LBJI14346.mta13.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:10:20 -0500
Message-ID: <00c801c751dc$9298f060$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 07:10:19 -0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464
Subject: [Ltru] Re: Comorian and other issues
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Nicolas Krebs <nicolas1 dot krebs3 at netcourrier dot com> wrote:

> 2 western variant
> For "western" generic variant previously discuted
> ( 
> http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2006-August/004899.html
> etc. ), you can see
> fa-pes (Western Farsi)
> fa-prs (Eastern Farsi)
> hy-arevmda (Western Armenian)
> hy-arevela (Eastern Armenian)

As you can see from looking at the Registry, the "'western' generic 
variant" didn't materialize.  It was deemed too broad, and so instead we 
have "arevmda" and "arevela" which apply specifically to Armenian. 
"Western" and "Eastern" mean very different things depending on the 
language those words modify.

> 5 modified Description
> For the following sutag, the Description: was modified, and so the 
> meaning too.

When an ISO agency changes the Description but keeps the same code 
element, they are expressing their view that the entity being coded is 
the same.  We reflect that view in standards-based subtags.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

Ltru mailing list