Re: Missing M.49 code

(a) Not a relevant objection. There may well be a need; BCP47 is structured
so that we don't have to care whether there is a "need" for ja-AQ, etc.

(b), (c) General-purpose software has come to depend on the LSTR for stable
codes. Having a misalignment does nobody any good.

And thanks to John for contacting the right people.

Mark

On Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 7:45 AM, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:

> John Cowan wrote:
>
> The Maintenance Agency is ISO itself.  I contacted them about
>> assigning an alphabetic code to Sark, but they told me to contact
>> ANSI.  I have forwarded my request there.
>>
>
> Is this desired because
>
> (a) there is actual linguistic content in Sercquiais (or the "Sark
> variety" of some other language) that needs to be tagged,
>
> (b) because there is a desire to create CLDR locale data for Sark, or
>
> (c) simply because CLDR somehow expects every UN M.49 code element to have
> a corresponding ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 code element?
>
> The latter, at least, would seem to be an artificial assumption.
>
>
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages