VOOZH about

URL: https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4645/

⇱ RFC 4645: Initial Language Subtag Registry | RFC Editor


RFC 4645: Initial Language Subtag Registry

  • D. Ewell
Informational
Network Working Group D. Ewell, Ed.
Request for Comments: 4645 Consultant
Category: Informational September 2006


 Initial Language Subtag Registry

Status of This Memo

 This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
 not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
 memo is unlimited.

Copyright Notice

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

Abstract

 This memo defined the initial contents of the IANA Language Subtag
 Registry for use in forming tags for the identification of languages.
 Since the contents of this memo only served as a starting point for
 the registry, its actual contents have been removed before
 publication to avoid confusion.

Table of Contents

 1. Introduction ....................................................2
 2. Initialization of the Registry ..................................2
 3. Initial Registry Contents .......................................5
 4. Omitted Code Elements ...........................................5
 5. Security Considerations .........................................5
 6. IANA Considerations .............................................5
 7. References ......................................................6
 7.1. Normative References .......................................6
 7.2. Informative References .....................................6















Ewell Informational [Page 1]

RFC 4645 Initial Language Subtag Registry September 2006


1. Introduction

 [] provides for a Language Subtag Registry and describes its
 format. This memo defines the initial contents of the IANA Language
 Subtag Registry, using the criteria described in Section 2.

 The Language Subtag Registry is formatted in a modified record-jar
 text format, as described in [record-jar]. The specific format of
 the registry, and the definition and intended purpose of each of the
 fields, are described in [RFC4646].

 The registry is expected to change over time, as new subtags are
 registered and existing subtags are modified or deprecated. The
 process of updating the registry is described in Section 3 of
 [RFC4646]. This memo does not define the permanent contents of the
 registry and should not be represented as doing so.

 Many of the subtags defined in this registry are based on code
 elements defined in [ISO639-1], [ISO639-2], [ISO15924], [ISO3166-1],
 and [UN_M.49]. This registry is not a mirror of the code lists
 defined by these standards and should not be used as one.

2. Initialization of the Registry

 Section 3.7 of [RFC4646] requires that the LTRU working group create
 an initial version of the Language Subtag Registry and populate it
 with the initial set of subtags. This involves converting the
 entries from the existing IANA language tag registry defined by
 [RFC3066] to the new format, as well as defining valid subtags from
 various source standards. This section describes the process that
 was used to create the initial registry entries.

 The initial set of records was based on the following standards:
 [ISO639-1], [ISO639-2], [ISO15924], and [ISO3166-1]. The following
 criteria were used to select and format the records of the subtags
 included in the initial Language Subtag Registry (hereafter "ILSR"):

 1. For each source standard, the date of the standard referenced
 in [RFC1766] was selected as the starting date. Code elements
 that were valid on that date in the selected standard were
 added to the ILSR. Code elements that were previously
 assigned, but that were vacated or withdrawn before that date,
 were not added to the ILSR.

 2. For each successive change to the standard, any additional
 assignments up to the date of the adoption of [RFC4646] were
 added to the ILSR. Values that have been withdrawn are marked
 as deprecated, but not removed. Changes in meaning or



Ewell Informational [Page 2]

RFC 4645 Initial Language Subtag Registry September 2006


 assignment of a subtag were permitted during this process (for
 example, the [ISO3166-1] code element 'CS' was originally
 assigned to Czechoslovakia and is now assigned to Serbia and
 Montenegro).

 Code elements from [UN_M.49] were also included in the ILSR using the
 criteria above, with the following additional rules:

 3. UN numeric code elements assigned to "macro-geographical
 (continental)" regions as of the date of adoption of [RFC4646]
 were added to the ILSR and thereby made valid for use in
 language tags.

 4. The UN numeric code elements for "economic groupings" or
 "other groupings," and the alphanumeric code elements in
 Appendix X of the UN document, were not added to the ILSR.

 5. The UN numeric code elements for countries or areas not
 associated with an assigned [ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code element
 were not added to the ILSR. These values are listed in
 Section 4 and may be requested for registration by individuals
 using the process defined in [RFC4646] and according to the
 rules described therein. Listing of these code elements in
 this section is not a guarantee of future registration.

 6. Code elements that were withdrawn, vacated, or deprecated from
 [UN_M.49] as of the date of adoption of [RFC4646] were not
 added to the ILSR.

 Using the initial set of subtags described above, the tags in the
 [RFC3066] registry were evaluated as follows:

 7. Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that were not deprecated,
 consisted entirely of subtags already in this document, and
 have the correct form and format for tags defined by [RFC4646]
 were converted to records of type "redundant" in the ILSR.
 For example, "zh-Hant" is now defined by [RFC4646] because
 'zh' is an [ISO639-1] code element and 'Hant' is an [ISO15924]
 code element, and both are defined as subtags in the ILSR.

 8. Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that contained one or more
 subtags that either did not match the valid registration
 pattern or were not otherwise defined by [RFC4646] were
 converted to corresponding records of type "grandfathered" in
 the ILSR. These records cannot become type "redundant" except
 by revision of [RFC4646], but may have a "Deprecated" and





Ewell Informational [Page 3]

RFC 4645 Initial Language Subtag Registry September 2006


 "Preferred-Value" field added to them if a subsequent subtag
 assignment or combination of assignments renders the tag
 obsolete.

 9. Tags in the [RFC3066] registry that had a notation that they
 were deprecated were converted to records of type
 "grandfathered" in the ILSR. The record for the grandfathered
 entry contains a "Deprecated" field with the most appropriate
 date that can be determined for when the [RFC3066] record was
 deprecated. The "Comments" field may optionally contain a
 reason for the deprecation. The "Preferred-Value" field
 contains a tag that replaces the value. For example, the
 [RFC3066] tag "art-lojban" is deprecated and thus appears as a
 grandfathered tag in the ILSR. Its "Deprecated" field
 contains the deprecation date (in this case "2003-09-02") and
 the "Preferred-Value" field the value "jbo".

 10. The remaining tags in the [RFC3066] registry are not
 deprecated and have a format consistent with language tags as
 defined by [RFC4646] but contain subtags that are not defined
 in the ILSR. These subtags are eligible for registration as
 variants. The ILSR contains appropriate variant records for
 the following list of subtags, and the registered [RFC3066]
 tags containing these subtags were entered into the ILSR as
 type "redundant":

 1901 (use with Prefix: de)

 1996 (use with Prefix: de)

 nedis (use with Prefix: sl)

 rozaj (use with Prefix: sl)

 11. All remaining [RFC3066] registered tags were converted to
 records of type "grandfathered" in the ILSR. Interested
 parties may use the registration process in [RFC4646] to
 attempt to register the variant subtags not already present in
 the Language Subtag Registry. If all of the subtags in the
 original tag become fully defined by the resulting
 registrations, then the original tag is superseded. Such tags
 will have their record changed from type "grandfathered" to
 type "redundant" in the registry. Note that previous approval
 of a tag under [RFC3066] is not a guarantee of approval of a
 variant subtag under [RFC4646]. The existing [RFC3066] tag
 maintains its validity, but the original reason for its
 registration might have become obsolete.




Ewell Informational [Page 4]

RFC 4645 Initial Language Subtag Registry September 2006


3. Initial Registry Contents

 The remainder of this section specified the initial set of records
 for the registry. This material was deleted on publication of this
 memo, to avoid any potential confusion with the registry itself. The
 IANA language subtag registry can be found at
 <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> under "Language Tags".

4. Omitted Code Elements

 The following code elements from [UN_M.49] were not associated with
 [ISO3166-1] alpha-2 code elements. Consequently, they were not
 assigned as subtags in the initial Language Subtag Registry, but were
 valid candidates for registration as region subtags, using the
 process in [RFC4646]:

 830 Channel Islands
 831 Guernsey
 832 Jersey
 833 Isle of Man

 The last three became ineligible for registration in April, 2006,
 when the [ISO3166-1] code elements GG, JE, and IM were assigned as
 region subtags.

5. Security Considerations

 This document specifies the initial contents to be used by IANA in
 populating the Language Subtag Registry. For security considerations
 relevant to that registry and the use of language tags, see
 [RFC4646].

6. IANA Considerations

 This document points to the initial content for the Language Subtag
 Registry which is maintained by the IANA. The IANA language subtag
 registry can be found at <http://www.iana.org/numbers.html> under
 "Language Tags". For details on the procedures for the format and
 ongoing maintenance of this registry, see [RFC4646].












Ewell Informational [Page 5]

RFC 4645 Initial Language Subtag Registry September 2006


7. References

7.1. Normative References

 [] Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for
 Identifying Languages", BCP 47, RFC 4646, September
 2006.

7.2. Informative References

 [] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
 15924:2004. Information and documentation -- Codes for
 the representation of names of scripts", January 2004.

 [] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
 3166:1988. Codes for the representation of names of
 countries, 3rd edition", August 1988.

 [] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
 639-1:2002. Codes for the representation of names of
 languages -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code", 2002.

 [] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
 639-2:1998. Codes for the representation of names of
 languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition",
 1998.

 [] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
 Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.

 [] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
 Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.

 [] Statistics Division, United Nations, "Standard Country
 or Area Codes for Statistical Use", UN Standard Country
 or Area Codes for Statistical Use, Revision 4 (United
 Nations publication, Sales No. 98.XVII.9, June 1999.

 [] Raymond, E., "The Art of Unix Programming", 2003.

Author's Address

 Doug Ewell (Editor)
 Consultant

 EMail: dewell@adelphia.net
 URI: http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell




Ewell Informational [Page 6]

RFC 4645 Initial Language Subtag Registry September 2006


Full Copyright Statement

 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2006).

 This document is subject to the rights, licenses and restrictions
 contained in BCP 78, and except as set forth therein, the authors
 retain all their rights.

 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Intellectual Property

 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any
 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to
 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in
 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights
 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has
 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information
 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be
 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79.

 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any
 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an
 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of
 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this
 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at
 http://www.ietf.org/ipr.

 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any
 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary
 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement
 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at
 ietf-ipr@ietf.org.

Acknowledgement

 Funding for the RFC Editor function is provided by the IETF
 Administrative Support Activity (IASA).







Ewell Informational [Page 7]
RFC 4645: Initial Language Subtag Registry
Informational