Re: The "QU" territory/region code (was New Public Review Issue: #116 Proposed Update UTS #35 LDML)

Mark Davis wrote:

> (In retrospect, I also think it was unproductive to have incomplete 
> M49 codes ( http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm). It 
> wouldn't hurt to add the very few M49 codes that are excluded from BCP 
> 47, even if deprecated, if only to make testing and cross mapping 
> easier.)

I disagree rather strongly.  Non-geographical, non-linguistic groupings 
such as "Landlocked developing countries" and "Transition countries" 
(the modern name for the category once known as "Communist states") have 
no place in language tags or computer locales.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
NEW E-MAIL -->  dewell at roadrunner dot com
NEW URL -->  http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ