[Docs] [txt|pdf] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (RFC 4646) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 RFC 5646

Network Working Group                                   A. Phillips, Ed.
Internet-Draft                                               Yahoo! Inc.
Obsoletes: 4646 (if approved)                              M. Davis, Ed.
Intended status: Best Current                                     Google
Practice                                                December 4, 2007
Expires: June 6, 2008


                     Tags for Identifying Languages
                       draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-10

Status of this Memo

   By submitting this Internet-Draft, each author represents that any
   applicable patent or other IPR claims of which he or she is aware
   have been or will be disclosed, and any of which he or she becomes
   aware will be disclosed, in accordance with Section 6 of BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups.  Note that
   other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-
   Drafts.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt.

   The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at
   http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html.

   This Internet-Draft will expire on June 6, 2008.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).












Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 1]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


Abstract

   This document describes the structure, content, construction, and
   semantics of language tags for use in cases where it is desirable to
   indicate the language used in an information object.  It also
   describes how to register values for use in language tags and the
   creation of user-defined extensions for private interchange.


Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  4
   2.  The Language Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.1.  Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  5
     2.2.  Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation . . . . . . . .  8
       2.2.1.  Primary Language Subtag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  9
       2.2.2.  Extended Language Subtags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.3.  Script Subtag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
       2.2.4.  Region Subtag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
       2.2.5.  Variant Subtags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
       2.2.6.  Extension Subtags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
       2.2.7.  Private Use Subtags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
       2.2.8.  Grandfathered Registrations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
       2.2.9.  Classes of Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
   3.  Registry Format and Maintenance  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
     3.1.  Format of the IANA Language Subtag Registry  . . . . . . . 19
       3.1.1.  File Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
       3.1.2.  Record Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
       3.1.3.  Subtag and Tag Fields  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
       3.1.4.  Description Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
       3.1.5.  Deprecated Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       3.1.6.  Preferred-Value Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
       3.1.7.  Prefix Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
       3.1.8.  Suppress-Script Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.1.9.  Macrolanguage Field  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
       3.1.10. Comments Field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     3.2.  Language Subtag Reviewer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     3.3.  Maintenance of the Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
     3.4.  Stability of IANA Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
     3.5.  Registration Procedure for Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
     3.6.  Possibilities for Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
     3.7.  Extensions and Extensions Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
     3.8.  Update of the Language Subtag Registry . . . . . . . . . . 41
   4.  Formation and Processing of Language Tags  . . . . . . . . . . 42
     4.1.  Choice of Language Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
     4.2.  Meaning of the Language Tag  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
     4.3.  Length Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
       4.3.1.  Working with Limited Buffer Sizes  . . . . . . . . . . 48



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 2]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


       4.3.2.  Truncation of Language Tags  . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
     4.4.  Canonicalization of Language Tags  . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
     4.5.  Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 52
   5.  IANA Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
     5.1.  Language Subtag Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
     5.2.  Extensions Registry  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
   6.  Security Considerations  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
   7.  Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
   8.  Changes from RFC 4646  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
   9.  References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
     9.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
     9.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgements  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
   Appendix B.  Examples of Language Tags (Informative) . . . . . . . 65
   Appendix C.  Examples of Registration Forms  . . . . . . . . . . . 68
   Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
   Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . . . 71


































Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 3]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


1.  Introduction

   Human beings on our planet have, past and present, used a number of
   languages.  There are many reasons why one would want to identify the
   language used when presenting or requesting information.

   A user's language preferences often need to be identified so that
   appropriate processing can be applied.  For example, the user's
   language preferences in a Web browser can be used to select Web pages
   appropriately.  Language preferences can also be used to select among
   tools (such as dictionaries) to assist in the processing or
   understanding of content in different languages.

   In addition, knowledge about the particular language used by some
   piece of information content might be useful or even required by some
   types of processing; for example, spell-checking, computer-
   synthesized speech, Braille transcription, or high-quality print
   renderings.

   One means of indicating the language used is by labeling the
   information content with an identifier or "tag".  These tags can be
   used to specify user preferences when selecting information content,
   or for labeling additional attributes of content and associated
   resources.

   Tags can also be used to indicate additional language attributes of
   content.  For example, indicating specific information about the
   dialect, writing system, or orthography used in a document or
   resource may enable the user to obtain information in a form that
   they can understand, or it can be important in processing or
   rendering the given content into an appropriate form or style.

   This document specifies a particular identifier mechanism (the
   language tag) and a registration function for values to be used to
   form tags.  It also defines a mechanism for private use values and
   future extension.

   This document replaces [RFC4646], which replaced [RFC3066] and its
   predecessor [RFC1766].  For a list of changes in this document, see
   Section 8.

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119].







Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 4]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


2.  The Language Tag

   Language tags are used to help identify languages, whether spoken,
   written, signed, or otherwise signaled, for the purpose of
   communication.  This includes constructed and artificial languages,
   but excludes languages not intended primarily for human
   communication, such as programming languages.

2.1.  Syntax

   The language tag is composed of one or more parts, known as
   "subtags".  Each subtag consists of a sequence of alphanumeric
   characters.  Subtags are distinguished and separated from one another
   by a hyphen ("-", ABNF [RFC4234] %x2D).  A language tag consists of a
   "primary language" subtag and a (possibly empty) series of subsequent
   subtags, each of which refines or narrows the range of languages
   identified by the overall tag.

   Usually, each type of subtag is distinguished by length, position in
   the tag, and content: subtags can be recognized solely by these
   features.  The only exception to this is a fixed list of
   grandfathered tags registered under RFC 3066 [RFC3066].  This makes
   it possible to construct a parser that can extract and assign some
   semantic information to the subtags, even if the specific subtag
   values are not recognized.  Thus, a parser need not have an up-to-
   date copy (or any copy at all) of the subtag registry to perform most
   searching and matching operations.
























Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 5]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   The syntax of the language tag in ABNF [RFC4234] is:

   Language-Tag  = langtag
                 / privateuse             ; private use tag
                 / irregular              ; tags grandfathered by rule

   langtag       = (language
                    ["-" script]
                    ["-" region]
                    *("-" variant)
                    *("-" extension)
                    ["-" privateuse])

   language      = (2*3ALPHA [ extlang ]) ; shortest ISO 639 code
                 / 4ALPHA                 ; reserved for future use
                 / 5*8ALPHA               ; registered language subtag

   extlang       = *3("-" 3ALPHA)         ; permanently reserved

   script        = 4ALPHA                 ; ISO 15924 code

   region        = 2ALPHA                 ; ISO 3166 code
                 / 3DIGIT                 ; UN M.49 code

   variant       = 5*8alphanum            ; registered variants
                 / (DIGIT 3alphanum)

   extension     = singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum))

   singleton     = %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT
                 ; "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9"
                 ; Single alphanumerics
                 ; "x" is reserved for private use

   privateuse    = "x" 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))

   irregular     = "en-GB-oed" / "i-ami" / "i-bnn" / "i-default"
                 / "i-enochian" / "i-hak" / "i-klingon" / "i-lux"
                 / "i-mingo" / "i-navajo" / "i-pwn" / "i-tao"
                 / "i-tay" / "i-tsu" / "sgn-BE-fr" / "sgn-BE-nl"
                 / "sgn-CH-de"

   alphanum      = (ALPHA / DIGIT)       ; letters and numbers

                        Figure 1: Language Tag ABNF

   All subtags have a maximum length of eight characters and whitespace
   is not permitted in a language tag.  There is a subtlety in the ABNF



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 6]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   production 'variant': variants starting with a digit MAY be four
   characters long, while those starting with a letter MUST be at least
   five characters long.  For examples of language tags, see Appendix B.

   Note Well: the ABNF syntax does not distinguish between upper and
   lowercase.  The appearance of upper and lowercase letters in the
   varous ABNF productions above do not affect how implementations
   interpret tags.  That is, the tag "I-AMI" matches the item "i-ami" in
   the 'irregular' production.  At all times, the tags and their
   subtags, including private use and extensions, are to be treated as
   case insensitive: there exist conventions for the capitalization of
   some of the subtags, but these MUST NOT be taken to carry meaning.

   For example:

   o  [ISO639-1] recommends that language codes be written in lowercase
      ('mn' Mongolian).

   o  [ISO3166-1] recommends that country codes be capitalized ('MN'
      Mongolia).

   o  [ISO15924] recommends that script codes use lowercase with the
      initial letter capitalized ('Cyrl' Cyrillic).

   However, in the tags defined by this document, the uppercase US-ASCII
   letters in the range 'A' through 'Z' are considered equivalent and
   mapped directly to their US-ASCII lowercase equivalents in the range
   'a' through 'z'.  Thus, the tag "mn-Cyrl-MN" is not distinct from
   "MN-cYRL-mn" or "mN-cYrL-Mn" (or any other combination), and each of
   these variations conveys the same meaning: Mongolian written in the
   Cyrillic script as used in Mongolia.

   Although case distinctions do not carry meaning in language tags,
   consistent formatting and presentation of the tags will aid users.
   The format of the tags and subtags in the registry is RECOMMENDED.
   In this format, all non-initial two-letter subtags are uppercase, all
   non-initial four-letter subtags are titlecase, and all other subtags
   are lowercase.

   Note that although [RFC4234] refers to octets, the language tags
   described in this document are sequences of characters from the US-
   ASCII [ISO646] repertoire.  Language tags MAY be used in documents
   and applications that use other encodings, so long as these encompass
   the US-ASCII repertoire.  An example of this would be an XML document
   that uses the UTF-16LE [RFC2781] encoding of [Unicode].






Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 7]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


2.2.  Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation

   The namespace of language tags and their subtags is administered by
   the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [RFC2860] according to
   the rules in Section 5 of this document.  The Language Subtag
   Registry maintained by IANA is the source for valid subtags: other
   standards referenced in this section provide the source material for
   that registry.

   Terminology used in this document:

   o  Tag or tags refers to a complete language tag, such as
      "sr-Latn-RS" or "az-Arab-IR".  Examples of tags in this document
      are enclosed in double-quotes ("en-US").

   o  Subtag refers to a specific section of a tag, delimited by hyphen,
      such as the subtag 'Hant' in "zh-Hant-CN".  Examples of subtags in
      this document are enclosed in single quotes ('Hant').

   o  Code or codes refers to values defined in external standards (and
      which are used as subtags in this document).  For example, 'Hant'
      is an [ISO15924] script code that was used to define the 'Hant'
      script subtag for use in a language tag.  Examples of codes in
      this document are enclosed in single quotes ('en', 'Hant').

   The definitions in this section apply to the various subtags within
   the language tags defined by this document, excepting those
   "grandfathered" tags defined in Section 2.2.8.

   Language tags are designed so that each subtag type has unique length
   and content restrictions.  These make identification of the subtag's
   type possible, even if the content of the subtag itself is
   unrecognized.  This allows tags to be parsed and processed without
   reference to the latest version of the underlying standards or the
   IANA registry and makes the associated exception handling when
   parsing tags simpler.

   Subtags in the IANA registry that do not come from an underlying
   standard can only appear in specific positions in a tag.
   Specifically, they can only occur as primary language subtags or as
   variant subtags.

   Note that sequences of private use and extension subtags MUST occur
   at the end of the sequence of subtags and MUST NOT be interspersed
   with subtags defined elsewhere in this document.

   Single-letter and single-digit subtags are reserved for current or
   future use.  These include the following current uses:



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 8]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   o  The single-letter subtag 'x' is reserved to introduce a sequence
      of private use subtags.  The interpretation of any private use
      subtags is defined solely by private agreement and is not defined
      by the rules in this section or in any standard or registry
      defined in this document.

   o  All other single-letter subtags are reserved to introduce
      standardized extension subtag sequences as described in
      Section 3.7.

   The single-letter subtag 'i' is used by some grandfathered tags, such
   as "i-default", where it always appears in the first position and
   cannot be confused with an extension.

2.2.1.  Primary Language Subtag

   The primary language subtag is the first subtag in a language tag
   (with the exception of private use and certain grandfathered tags)
   and cannot be omitted.  The following rules apply to the primary
   language subtag:

   1.  All two-character primary language subtags were defined in the
       IANA registry according to the assignments found in the standard
       ISO 639 Part 1, "ISO 639-1:2002, Codes for the representation of
       names of languages -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code" [ISO639-1], or using
       assignments subsequently made by the ISO 639-1 registration
       authority (RA) or governing standardization bodies.

   2.  All three-character primary language subtags were defined in the
       IANA registry according to the assignments found in either ISO
       639 Part 2, "ISO 639-2:1998 - Codes for the representation of
       names of languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code - edition 1"
       [ISO639-2], ISO 639 Part 3, "Codes for the representation of
       names of languages -- Part 3: Alpha-3 code for comprehensive
       coverage of languages" [ISO639-3], or assignments subsequently
       made by the relevant ISO 639 registration authorities or
       governing standardization bodies.

   3.  The subtags in the range 'qaa' through 'qtz' are reserved for
       private use in language tags.  These subtags correspond to codes
       reserved by ISO 639-2 for private use.  These codes MAY be used
       for non-registered primary language subtags (instead of using
       private use subtags following 'x-').  Please refer to Section 4.5
       for more information on private use subtags.

   4.  All four-character language subtags are reserved for possible
       future standardization.




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                  [Page 9]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   5.  All language subtags of 5 to 8 characters in length in the IANA
       registry were defined via the registration process in Section 3.5
       and MAY be used to form the primary language subtag.  At the time
       this document was created, there were no examples of this kind of
       subtag and future registrations of this type will be discouraged:
       primary languages are strongly RECOMMENDED for registration with
       ISO 639, and proposals rejected by ISO 639/RA-JAC will be closely
       scrutinized before they are registered with IANA.

   6.  The single-character subtag 'x' as the primary subtag indicates
       that the language tag consists solely of subtags whose meaning is
       defined by private agreement.  For example, in the tag "x-fr-CH",
       the subtags 'fr' and 'CH' SHOULD NOT be taken to represent the
       French language or the country of Switzerland (or any other value
       in the IANA registry) unless there is a private agreement in
       place to do so.  See Section 4.5.

   7.  The single-character subtag 'i' is used by some grandfathered
       tags (see Section 2.2.8) such as "i-klingon" and "i-bnn".  (Other
       grandfathered tags have a primary language subtag in their first
       position.)

   8.  Other values MUST NOT be assigned to the primary subtag except by
       revision or update of this document.

   Note: For languages that have both an ISO 639-1 two-character code
   and a three character code assigned by either ISO 639-2 or ISO 639-3,
   only the ISO 639-1 two-character code is defined in the IANA
   registry.

   Note: For languages that have no ISO 639-1 two-character code and for
   which the ISO 639-2/T (Terminology) code and the ISO 639-2/B
   (Bibliographic) codes differ, only the Terminology code is defined in
   the IANA registry.  At the time this document was created, all
   languages that had both kinds of three-character code were also
   assigned a two-character code; it is expected that future assignments
   of this nature will not occur.

   Note: To avoid problems with versioning and subtag choice as
   experienced during the transition between RFC 1766 and RFC 3066, as
   well as the canonical nature of subtags defined by this document, the
   ISO 639 Registration Authority Joint Advisory Committee (ISO 639/
   RA-JAC) has included the following statement in [iso639.prin]:

      "A language code already in ISO 639-2 at the point of freezing ISO
      639-1 shall not later be added to ISO 639-1.  This is to ensure
      consistency in usage over time, since users are directed in
      Internet applications to employ the alpha-3 code when an alpha-2



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 10]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


      code for that language is not available."

   In order to avoid instability in the canonical form of tags, if a
   two-character code is added to ISO 639-1 for a language for which a
   three-character code was already included in either ISO 639-2 or ISO
   639-3, the two-character code MUST NOT be registered.  See
   Section 3.4.

   For example, if some content were tagged with 'haw' (Hawaiian), which
   currently has no two-character code, the tag would not be invalidated
   if ISO 639-1 were to assign a two-character code to the Hawaiian
   language at a later date.

   Note: An example of independent primary language subtag registration
   might include: one of the grandfathered IANA registrations is
   "i-enochian".  The subtag 'enochian' could be registered in the IANA
   registry as a primary language subtag (assuming that ISO 639 does not
   register this language first), making tags such as "enochian-AQ" and
   "enochian-Latn" valid.

2.2.2.  Extended Language Subtags

   Extended language subtags are permanently reserved.  They MUST NOT be
   registered or used to form language tags (except in grandfathered
   tags).  They were originally created to allow for certain kinds of
   compatibility mappings which ultimately were not used.

2.2.3.  Script Subtag

   Script subtags are used to indicate the script or writing system
   variations that distinguish the written forms of a language or its
   dialects.  The following rules apply to the script subtags:

   1.  All four-character subtags were defined according to
       [ISO15924]--"Codes for the representation of the names of
       scripts": alpha-4 script codes, or subsequently assigned by the
       ISO 15924 maintenance agency or governing standardization bodies,
       denoting the script or writing system used in conjunction with
       this language.

   2.  Script subtags MUST immediately follow the primary language
       subtag and all extended language subtags and MUST occur before
       any other type of subtag described below.

   3.  The script subtags 'Qaaa' through 'Qabx' are reserved for private
       use in language tags.  These subtags correspond to codes reserved
       by ISO 15924 for private use.  These codes MAY be used for non-
       registered script values.  Please refer to Section 4.5 for more



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 11]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


       information on private use subtags.

   4.  Script subtags MUST NOT be registered using the process in
       Section 3.5 of this document.  Variant subtags MAY be considered
       for registration for that purpose.

   5.  There MUST be at most one script subtag in a language tag, and
       the script subtag SHOULD be omitted when it adds no
       distinguishing value to the tag or when the primary language
       subtag's record includes a Suppress-Script field listing the
       applicable script subtag.

   Example: "sr-Latn" represents Serbian written using the Latin script.

2.2.4.  Region Subtag

   Region subtags are used to indicate linguistic variations associated
   with or appropriate to a specific country, territory, or region.
   Typically, a region subtag is used to indicate regional dialects or
   usage, or region-specific spelling conventions.  A region subtag can
   also be used to indicate that content is expressed in a way that is
   appropriate for use throughout a region, for instance, Spanish
   content tailored to be useful throughout Latin America.

   The following rules apply to the region subtags:

   1.  Region subtags MUST follow any language, extended language, or
       script subtags and MUST precede all other subtags.

   2.  All two-character subtags following the primary subtag were
       defined in the IANA registry according to the assignments found
       in [ISO3166-1] ("Codes for the representation of names of
       countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes") using
       the list of alpha-2 country codes, or using assignments
       subsequently made by the ISO 3166 maintenance agency or governing
       standardization bodies.  In addition, the codes that are
       "exceptionally reserved" (as opposed to "assigned") in ISO 3166-1
       were also defined in the registry, with the exception of 'UK',
       which is an exact synonym for the assigned code 'GB'.

   3.  All three-character subtags consisting of digit (numeric)
       characters following the primary subtag were defined in the IANA
       registry according to the assignments found in UN Standard
       Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use [UN_M.49] or
       assignments subsequently made by the governing standards body.
       Note that not all of the UN M.49 codes are defined in the IANA
       registry.  The following rules define which codes are entered
       into the registry as valid subtags:



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 12]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


       A.  UN numeric codes assigned to 'macro-geographical
           (continental)' or sub-regions MUST be registered in the
           registry.  These codes are not associated with an assigned
           ISO 3166 alpha-2 code and represent supra-national areas,
           usually covering more than one nation, state, province, or
           territory.

       B.  UN numeric codes for 'economic groupings' or 'other
           groupings' MUST NOT be registered in the IANA registry and
           MUST NOT be used to form language tags.

       C.  UN numeric codes for countries or areas with ambiguous ISO
           3166 alpha-2 codes, when entered into the registry, MUST be
           defined according to the rules in Section 3.4 and MUST be
           used to form language tags that represent the country or
           region for which they are defined.

       D.  UN numeric codes for countries or areas for which there is an
           associated ISO 3166 alpha-2 code in the registry MUST NOT be
           entered into the registry and MUST NOT be used to form
           language tags.  Note that the ISO 3166-based subtag in the
           registry MUST actually be associated with the UN M.49 code in
           question.

       E.  UN numeric codes and ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes for countries or
           areas listed as eligible for registration in [RFC4645] but
           not presently registered MAY be entered into the IANA
           registry via the process described in Section 3.5.  Once
           registered, these codes MAY be used to form language tags.

       F.  All other UN numeric codes for countries or areas that do not
           have an associated ISO 3166 alpha-2 code MUST NOT be entered
           into the registry and MUST NOT be used to form language tags.
           For more information about these codes, see Section 3.4.

   4.  Note: The alphanumeric codes in Appendix X of the UN document
       MUST NOT be entered into the registry and MUST NOT be used to
       form language tags.  (At the time this document was created,
       these values matched the ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes.)

   5.  There MUST be at most one region subtag in a language tag and the
       region subtag MAY be omitted, as when it adds no distinguishing
       value to the tag.

   6.  The region subtags 'AA', 'QM'-'QZ', 'XA'-'XZ', and 'ZZ' are
       reserved for private use in language tags.  These subtags
       correspond to codes reserved by ISO 3166 for private use.  These
       codes MAY be used for private use region subtags (instead of



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 13]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


       using a private use subtag sequence).  Please refer to
       Section 4.5 for more information on private use subtags.

   "de-CH" represents German ('de') as used in Switzerland ('CH').

   "sr-Latn-RS" represents Serbian ('sr') written using Latin script
   ('Latn') as used in Serbia ('RS').

   "es-419" represents Spanish ('es') appropriate to the UN-defined
   Latin America and Caribbean region ('419').

2.2.5.  Variant Subtags

   Variant subtags are used to indicate additional, well-recognized
   variations that define a language or its dialects that are not
   covered by other available subtags.  The following rules apply to the
   variant subtags:

   1.  Variant subtags are not associated with any external standard.
       Variant subtags and their meanings are defined by the
       registration process defined in Section 3.5.

   2.  Variant subtags MUST follow all of the other defined subtags, but
       precede any extension or private use subtag sequences.

   3.  More than one variant MAY be used to form the language tag.

   4.  Variant subtags MUST be registered with IANA according to the
       rules in Section 3.5 of this document before being used to form
       language tags.  In order to distinguish variants from other types
       of subtags, registrations MUST meet the following length and
       content restrictions:

       1.  Variant subtags that begin with a letter (a-z, A-Z) MUST be
           at least five characters long.

       2.  Variant subtags that begin with a digit (0-9) MUST be at
           least four characters long.

   Variant subtag records in the language subtag registry MAY include
   one or more 'Prefix' fields.  The 'Prefix' indicates the language tag
   or tags that would make a suitable prefix (with other subtags, as
   appropriate) in forming a language tag with the variant.  That is,
   each of the subtags in the prefix SHOULD appear before the variant.
   For example, the subtag 'nedis' has a Prefix of "sl", making it
   suitable to form language tags such as "sl-nedis" and "sl-IT-nedis",
   but not suitable for use in a tag such as "zh-nedis" or "it-IT-
   nedis".



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 14]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   "sl-nedis" represents the Natisone or Nadiza dialect of Slovenian.

   "de-CH-1996" represents German as used in Switzerland and as written
   using the spelling reform beginning in the year 1996 C.E.

   Most variants that share a prefix are mutually exclusive.  For
   example, the German orthographic variations '1996' and '1901' SHOULD
   NOT be used in the same tag, as they represent the dates of different
   spelling reforms.  A variant that can meaningfully be used in
   combination with another variant SHOULD include a 'Prefix' field in
   its registry record that lists that other variant.  For example, if
   another German variant 'example' were created that made sense to use
   with '1996', then 'example' should include two Prefix fields: "de"
   and "de-1996".

2.2.6.  Extension Subtags

   Extensions provide a mechanism for extending language tags for use in
   various applications.  See Section 3.7.  The following rules apply to
   extensions:

   1.   Extension subtags are separated from the other subtags defined
        in this document by a single-character subtag ("singleton").
        The singleton MUST be one allocated to a registration authority
        via the mechanism described in Section 3.7 and MUST NOT be the
        letter 'x', which is reserved for private use subtag sequences.

   2.   Note: Private use subtag sequences starting with the singleton
        subtag 'x' are described in Section 2.2.7 below.

   3.   An extension MUST follow at least a primary language subtag.
        That is, a language tag cannot begin with an extension.
        Extensions extend language tags, they do not override or replace
        them.  For example, "a-value" is not a well-formed language tag,
        while "de-a-value" is.

   4.   Each singleton subtag MUST appear at most one time in each tag
        (other than as a private use subtag).  That is, singleton
        subtags MUST NOT be repeated.  For example, the tag "en-a-bbb-a-
        ccc" is invalid because the subtag 'a' appears twice.  Note that
        the tag "en-a-bbb-x-a-ccc" is valid because the second
        appearance of the singleton 'a' is in a private use sequence.

   5.   Extension subtags MUST meet all of the requirements for the
        content and format of subtags defined in this document.

   6.   Extension subtags MUST meet whatever requirements are set by the
        document that defines their singleton prefix and whatever



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 15]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


        requirements are provided by the maintaining authority.

   7.   Each extension subtag MUST be from two to eight characters long
        and consist solely of letters or digits, with each subtag
        separated by a single '-'.

   8.   Each singleton MUST be followed by at least one extension
        subtag.  For example, the tag "tlh-a-b-foo" is invalid because
        the first singleton 'a' is followed immediately by another
        singleton 'b'.

   9.   Extension subtags MUST follow all language, extended language,
        script, region, and variant subtags in a tag.

   10.  All subtags following the singleton and before another singleton
        are part of the extension.  Example: In the tag "fr-a-Latn", the
        subtag 'Latn' does not represent the script subtag 'Latn'
        defined in the IANA Language Subtag Registry.  Its meaning is
        defined by the extension 'a'.

   11.  In the event that more than one extension appears in a single
        tag, the tag SHOULD be canonicalized as described in
        Section 4.4.

   For example, if the prefix singleton 'r' and the shown subtags were
   defined, then the following tag would be a valid example: "en-Latn-
   GB-boont-r-extended-sequence-x-private"

2.2.7.  Private Use Subtags

   Private use subtags are used to indicate distinctions in language
   important in a given context by private agreement.  The following
   rules apply to private use subtags:

   1.  Private use subtags are separated from the other subtags defined
       in this document by the reserved single-character subtag 'x'.

   2.  Private use subtags MUST conform to the format and content
       constraints defined in the ABNF for all subtags.

   3.  Private use subtags MUST follow all language, extended language,
       script, region, variant, and extension subtags in the tag.
       Another way of saying this is that all subtags following the
       singleton 'x' MUST be considered private use.  Example: The
       subtag 'US' in the tag "en-x-US" is a private use subtag.

   4.  A tag MAY consist entirely of private use subtags.




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 16]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   5.  No source is defined for private use subtags.  Use of private use
       subtags is by private agreement only.

   6.  Private use subtags are NOT RECOMMENDED where alternatives exist
       or for general interchange.  See Section 4.5 for more information
       on private use subtag choice.

   For example: Users who wished to utilize codes from the Ethnologue
   publication of SIL International for language identification might
   agree to exchange tags such as "az-Arab-x-AZE-derbend".  This example
   contains two private use subtags.  The first is 'AZE' and the second
   is 'derbend'.

2.2.8.  Grandfathered Registrations

   Prior to RFC 4646, whole language tags were registered according to
   the rules in RFC 1766 and/or RFC 3066.  These registered tags
   maintain their validity.  Of those tags, those that were made
   obsolete or redundant by the advent of RFC 4646, by this document, or
   by subsequent registration of subtags are maintained in the registry
   in records as "redundant" records.  Those tags that do not match the
   'langtag' production in the ABNF in this document or that contain
   subtags that do not individually appear in the registry are
   maintained in the registry in records of the "grandfathered" type.

   Grandfathered tags contain one or more subtags that are not defined
   in the Language Subtag Registry (see Section 3).  Redundant tags
   consist entirely of subtags defined above and whose independent
   registration was superseded by [RFC4646].  For more information see
   Section 3.8.

   Some grandfathered tags are "regular" in that they match the
   'langtag' production in Figure 1.  In some cases, these tags could
   become redundant if their (current unregistered) subtags were to be
   registered (as variants, for example).  In other cases, although the
   subtags match the language tag pattern, the meaning assigned to the
   various subtags is prohibited by rules elsewhere in this document.
   Those tags can never become redundant.

   The remaining grandfathered tags are "irregular" and do not match the
   'langtag' production.  These are listed in the 'irregular' production
   in Figure 1.  These grandfathered tags can never become redundant.
   Many of these tags have been superseded by other registrations: their
   record contains a Preferred-Value field that really ought to be used
   to form language tags representing that value.






Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 17]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


2.2.9.  Classes of Conformance

   Implementations sometimes need to describe their capabilities with
   regard to the rules and practices described in this document.  Tags
   can be checked or verified in a number of ways, but two particular
   classes of tag conformance are formally defined here.

   A tag is considered "well-formed" if it conforms to the ABNF
   (Section 2.1).  Note that irregular grandfathered tags are now listed
   in the 'irregular' production.

   Although a tag is considered "well-formed" if it contains a sequence
   matching the permanently reserved 'extlang' production, non-
   grandfathered tags that match this pattern are never valid and are
   ill-considered.

   A tag is considered "valid" if it well-formed and it also satisfies
   these conditions:

   o  The tag is either a grandfathered tag, or all of its language,
      extended language, script, region, and variant subtags appear in
      the IANA language subtag registry as of the particular registry
      date.

   o  There are no duplicate singleton (extension) subtags and no
      duplicate variant subtags.

   o  For each subtag that has a 'Prefix' field in the registry, the
      Prefix matches the language tag using Extended Filtering
      [RFC4647].  That is, each subtag in the Prefix is present in the
      tag and in the same order.  Furthermore, all of the Prefix's
      subtags MUST appear before the subtag.  For example, the Prefix
      "zh-TW" matches the tag "zh-Hant-TW".

   Note that a tag's validity depends on the date of the registry used
   to validate the tag.  A more-recent copy of the registry might
   contain a subtag that an older version does not.

   A tag is considered "valid" for a given extension (Section 3.7) (as
   of a particular version, revision, and date) if it meets the criteria
   for "valid" above and also satisfies this condition:

      Each subtag used in the extension part of the tag is valid
      according to the extension.







Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 18]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


3.  Registry Format and Maintenance

   This section defines the Language Subtag Registry and the maintenance
   and update procedures associated with it, as well as a registry for
   extensions to language tags (Section 3.7).

   The Language Subtag Registry contains a comprehensive list of all of
   the subtags valid in language tags.  This allows implementers a
   straightforward and reliable way to validate language tags.  The
   Language Subtag Registry will be maintained so that, except for
   extension subtags, it is possible to validate all of the subtags that
   appear in a language tag under the provisions of this document or its
   revisions or successors.  In addition, the meaning of the various
   subtags will be unambiguous and stable over time.  (The meaning of
   private use subtags, of course, is not defined by the IANA registry.)

3.1.  Format of the IANA Language Subtag Registry

   The IANA Language Subtag Registry ("the registry") is a machine-
   readable file in the format described in this section, plus copies of
   the registration forms approved in accordance with the process
   described in Section 3.5.  The existing registration forms for
   grandfathered and redundant tags taken from RFC 3066 will be
   maintained as part of the obsolete RFC 3066 registry.  The remaining
   set of subtags created by either [RFC4645] or [registry-update] will
   not have registration forms created for them.

3.1.1.  File Format

   The registry consists of a series of records stored in the record-jar
   format (described in [record-jar]).  Each record, in turn, consists
   of a series of fields that describe the various subtags and tags.
   The registry is a Unicode [Unicode] text file, using the UTF-8
   [RFC3629] character encoding.

   Each field can be considered a single, logical line of Unicode
   [Unicode] characters, comprising a field-name and a field-body
   separated by a COLON character (%x3A).  Each field is terminated by
   the newline sequence CRLF.  The text in each field MUST be in Unicode
   Normalization Form C (NFC).

   A collection of fields forms a 'record'.  Records are separated by
   lines containing only the sequence "%%" (%x25.25).

   Although fields are logically a single line of text, each line of
   text in the file format is limited to 72 bytes in length.  To
   accommodate this, the field-body can be split into a multiple-line
   representation; this is called "folding".  Folding is always done on



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 19]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   Unicode code point boundaries (never in the middle of a multibyte
   UTF-8 sequence) and MUST NOT occur just prior to a combining mark.

   Although the file format uses the UTF-8 encoding, unless otherwise
   indicated, fields are restricted to the printable characters from the
   US-ASCII [ISO646] repertoire.

   The format of the registry is described by the following ABNF (per
   [RFC4234]):

   registry   = record *("%%" CRLF record)
   record     = 1*( field-name *SP ":" *SP field-body CRLF )
   field-name = (ALPHA / DIGIT) [*(ALPHA / DIGIT / "-") (ALPHA / DIGIT)]
   field-body = *([[*SP CRLF] 1*SP] 1*CHARS)
   CHARS      = (%x21-10FFFF)      ; Unicode code points

                      Figure 2: Registry Format ABNF

   The sequence '..' (%x2E.2E) in a field-body denotes a range of
   values.  Such a range represents all subtags of the same length that
   are in alphabetic or numeric order within that range, including the
   values explicitly mentioned.  For example 'a..c' denotes the values
   'a', 'b', and 'c' and '11..13' denotes the values '11', '12', and
   '13'.

   All fields whose field-body contains a date value use the "full-date"
   format specified in [RFC3339].  For example: "2004-06-28" represents
   June 28, 2004, in the Gregorian calendar.

3.1.2.  Record Definitions

   There are three types of records in the registry: "File-Date",
   "Subtag", and "Tag" records.

   The first record in the registry is a "File-Date" record.  This
   record contains the single field whose field-name is "File-Date" (see
   Figure 2).  The field-body of this record contains the last
   modification date of this copy of the registry, making it possible to
   compare different versions of the registry.  The registry on the IANA
   website is the most current.  Versions with an older date than that
   one are not up-to-date.

   File-Date: 2004-06-28
   %%

                 Figure 3: Example of the File-Date Record

   Subsequent records represent either subtags or tags in the registry.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 20]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   "Subtag" records contain a field with a field-name of "Subtag",
   while, unsurprisingly, "Tag" records contain a field with a field-
   name of "Tag".  Each of the fields in each record MUST occur no more
   than once, unless otherwise noted below.  Each record MUST contain
   the following fields:

   o  'Type'

      *  Type's field-body MUST consist of one of the following strings:
         "language", "script", "region", "variant", "grandfathered", and
         "redundant" and denotes the type of tag or subtag.

   o  Either 'Subtag' or 'Tag'

      *  Subtag's field-body contains the subtag being defined.  This
         field MUST only appear in records of whose 'Type' has one of
         these values: "language", "script", "region", or "variant".

      *  Tag's field-body contains a complete language tag.  This field
         MUST only appear in records whose 'Type' has one of these
         values: "grandfathered" or "redundant".  Note that the field-
         body will always follow the 'grandfathered' production in the
         ABNF in Section 2.1

   o  Description

      *  Description's field-body contains a non-normative description
         of the subtag or tag.

   o  Added

      *  Added's field-body contains the date the record was added to
         the registry.

   Each record MAY also contain the following fields:

   o  Preferred-Value

      *  For fields of type 'script', 'region', and 'variant',
         'Preferred-Value' contains the subtag of the same 'Type' that
         is preferred for forming the language tag.

      *  For fields of type 'language', 'Preferred-Value' contains the
         primary language subtag that is preferred when forming the
         language tag.

      *  For fields of type 'grandfathered' and 'redundant', a canonical
         mapping to a complete language tag.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 21]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   o  Deprecated

      *  The field-body of the Deprecated field contains the date the
         record was deprecated.

   o  Prefix

      *  Prefix's field-body contains a language tag with which this
         subtag MAY be used to form a new language tag, perhaps with
         other subtags as well.  The Prefix's subtags appear before the
         subtag.  This field MUST only appear in records whose 'Type'
         field-body is 'variant'.  For example, the 'Prefix' for the
         variant 'nedis' is 'sl', meaning that the tags "sl-nedis" and
         "sl-IT-nedis" might be appropriate while the tag "is-nedis" is
         not.

   o  Comments

      *  Comments contains additional information about the subtag, as
         deemed appropriate for understanding the registry and
         implementing language tags using the subtag or tag.

   o  Suppress-Script

      *  Suppress-Script contains a script subtag that SHOULD NOT be
         used to form language tags with the associated primary language
         subtag.  This field MUST only appear in records whose 'Type'
         field-body is 'language'.  See Section 4.1.

   o  Macrolanguage

      *  Macrolanguage contains a primary language subtag defined by ISO
         639 as a "macrolanguage" that encompasses this language subtag.
         This field MUST only appear in records whose 'Type' field-body
         is 'language'.

   Future versions of this document might add additional fields to the
   registry, so implementations SHOULD ignore fields found in the
   registry that are not defined in this document.

3.1.3.  Subtag and Tag Fields

   The 'Subtag' field MUST use lowercase letters to form the subtag,
   with two exceptions.  Subtags whose 'Type' field is 'script' (in
   other words, subtags defined by ISO 15924) MUST use titlecase.
   Subtags whose 'Type' field is 'region' (in other words, the non-
   numeric region subtags defined by ISO 3166) MUST use uppercase.
   These exceptions mirror the use of case in the underlying standards.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 22]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   Each subtag in the tags contained in a 'Tag' field MUST be formatted
   using the rules in the preceeding paragraph.  That is, all subtags
   are lowercase except for subtags that represent script or region
   codes.

3.1.4.  Description Field

   The field 'Description' contains a description of the tag or subtag
   in the record.  The 'Description' field MAY appear more than once per
   record, that is, there can be multiple descriptions for a given
   record.  The 'Description' field MAY include the full range of
   Unicode characters.  At least one of the 'Description' fields MUST be
   written or transcribed into the Latin script; additional
   'Description' fields MAY also include a description in a non-Latin
   script.  Each 'Description' field MUST be unique, both within the
   record in which it appears and for the collection of records of the
   same type.  Moreover, formatting variations of the same description
   MUST NOT occur in that specific record or in any other record of the
   same type.  For example, while the ISO 639-1 code 'fy' contains both
   the descriptions "Western Frisian" and "Frisian, Western", only one
   of these descriptions appears in the registry.

   The 'Description' field is used for identification purposes and
   SHOULD NOT be taken to represent the actual native name of the
   language or variation or to be in any particular language.

   For records taken from a source standard (such as ISO 639 or ISO
   3166), the 'Description' value(s) SHOULD also be taken from the
   source standard.  Multiple descriptions in the source standard MUST
   be split into separate 'Description' fields.  The source standard's
   descriptions MAY be edited, either prior to insertion or via the
   registration process.  For fields of type 'language', the first
   'Description' field appearing in the Registry corresponds to the
   Reference Name assigned by ISO 639-3.  This helps facilitate cross-
   referencing between ISO 639 and the registry.

   When creating or updating a record due to the action of one of the
   source standards, the Language Subtag Reviewer SHOULD remove
   duplicate or redundant descriptions and MAY edit descriptions to
   correct irregularities in formatting (such as misspellings,
   inappropriate apostrophes or other punctuation, or excessive or
   missing spaces) prior to submitting the proposed record to the ietf-
   languages list.

   Note: Descriptions in registry entries that correspond to ISO 639,
   ISO 15924, ISO 3166, or UN M.49 codes are intended only to indicate
   the meaning of that identifier as defined in the source standard at
   the time it was added to the registry.  The description does not



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 23]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   replace the content of the source standard itself.  The descriptions
   are not intended to be the English localized names for the subtags.
   Localization or translation of language tag and subtag descriptions
   is out of scope of this document.

3.1.5.  Deprecated Field

   The field 'Deprecated' MAY be added to any record via the maintenance
   process described in Section 3.3 or via the registration process
   described in Section 3.5.  Usually, the addition of a 'Deprecated'
   field is due to the action of one of the standards bodies, such as
   ISO 3166, withdrawing a code.  In some historical cases, it might not
   have been possible to reconstruct the original deprecation date.  For
   these cases, an approximate date appears in the registry.  Although
   valid in language tags, subtags and tags with a 'Deprecated' field
   are deprecated and validating processors SHOULD NOT generate these
   subtags.  Note that a record that contains a 'Deprecated' field and
   no corresponding 'Preferred-Value' field has no replacement mapping.

3.1.6.  Preferred-Value Field

   The field 'Preferred-Value' contains a mapping between the record in
   which it appears and another tag or subtag.  The value in this field
   is strongly RECOMMENDED as the best choice to represent the value of
   this record when selecting a language tag.  These values form three
   groups:

   1.  ISO 639 language codes that were later withdrawn in favor of
       other codes.  These values are mostly a historical curiosity.

   2.  ISO 3166 region codes that have been withdrawn in favor of a new
       code.  This sometimes happens when a country changes its name or
       administration in such a way that warrants a new region code.

   3.  Grandfathered or redundant tags from RFC 3066.  In many cases,
       these tags have become obsolete because the values they represent
       were later encoded by ISO 639.

   Records that contain a 'Preferred-Value' field MUST also have a
   'Deprecated' field.  This field contains a date of deprecation.
   Thus, a language tag processor can use the registry to construct the
   valid, non-deprecated set of subtags for a given date.  In addition,
   for any given tag, a processor can construct the set of valid
   language tags that correspond to that tag for all dates up to the
   date of the registry.  The ability to do these mappings MAY be
   beneficial to applications that are matching, selecting, for
   filtering content based on its language tags.




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 24]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   Note that 'Preferred-Value' mappings in records of type 'region'
   sometimes do not represent exactly the same meaning as the original
   value.  There are many reasons for a country code to be changed, and
   the effect this has on the formation of language tags will depend on
   the nature of the change in question.

   In particular, the 'Preferred-Value' field does not imply retagging
   content that uses the affected subtag.

   The field 'Preferred-Value' MUST NOT be modified once created in the
   registry.  The field MAY be added to records according to the rules
   in Section 3.3.

   The 'Preferred-Value' field in records of type "grandfathered" and
   "redundant" contains whole language tags that are strongly
   RECOMMENDED for use in place of the record's value.  In many cases,
   the mappings were created by deprecation of the tags during the
   period before this document was adopted.  For example, the tag "no-
   nyn" was deprecated in favor of the ISO 639-1-defined language code
   'nn'.

3.1.7.  Prefix Field

   The 'Prefix' field contains an extended language range whose subtags
   are appropriate to use with this subtag: each of the subtags in one
   of the subtag's Prefix fields MUST appear before the variant in a
   valid tag.  For example, the variant subtag '1996' has a 'Prefix'
   field of "de".  This means that tags starting with the sequence "de-"
   are appropriate with this subtag, so "de-Latg-1996" and "de-CH-1996"
   are both acceptable, while the tag "fr-1996" is an inappropriate
   choice.

   The field of type 'Prefix' MUST NOT be removed from any record.  The
   field-body for this type of field MAY be modified, but only if the
   modification broadens the meaning of the subtag.  That is, the field-
   body can be replaced only by a prefix a prefix of itself.  For
   example, the Prefix "be-Latn" (Belarusian, Latin script) could be
   replaced by the Prefix "be" (Belarusian) but not by the Prefix "ru-
   Latn" (Russian, Latin script).

   Records of type 'variant' MAY have more than one field of type
   'Prefix'.  Additional fields of this type MAY be added to a 'variant'
   record via the registration process.

   The field-body of the 'Prefix' field MUST NOT conflict with any
   'Prefix' already registered for a given record.  Such a conflict
   would occur when when no valid tag could be constructed that would
   contain the prefix, such as when when two subtags each have a



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 25]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   'Prefix' that contains the other subtag.  For example, suppose that
   the subtag 'avariant' has the prefix "es-bvariant".  Then the subtag
   'bvariant' cannot given the prefix 'avariant', for that would require
   a tag of the form "es-avariant-bvariant-avariant", which would not be
   valid.

3.1.8.  Suppress-Script Field

   The field 'Suppress-Script' contains a script subtag (whose record
   appears in the registry).  The field 'Suppress-Script' MUST only
   appear in records whose 'Type' field-body is 'language'.  This field
   MUST NOT appear more than one time in a record.  This field indicates
   a script used to write the overwhelming majority of documents for the
   given language.  This script code therefore adds no distinguishing
   information to a language tag.  This helps ensure greater
   compatibility between the language tags generated according to the
   rules in this document and language tags and tag processors or
   consumers based on RFC 3066 by indicating that the script subtag
   SHOULD NOT be used for most documents in that language.  For example,
   virtually all Icelandic documents are written in the Latin script,
   making the subtag 'Latn' redundant in the tag "is-Latn".

   Many language subtag records do not have a Suppress-Script field.
   The lack of a Suppress-Script might indicate that the language is
   customarily written in more than one script or that the language is
   not customarily written at all.  It might also mean that sufficient
   information was not available when the record was created and thus
   remains a candidate for future registration.

3.1.9.  Macrolanguage Field

   The Macrolanguage field contains a primary language subtag that
   encompasses this subtag's language.  That is, the language subtag
   whose record this field appears in is sometimes considered to be a
   sub-language of the Macrolanguage.  Macrolanguage values are defined
   by ISO 639-3 and the exact nature of the relationship between the
   encompassed and encompassing languages varies on a case-by-case
   basis.

   This field can be useful to applications or users when selecting
   language tags or as additional metadata useful in matching.  The
   Macrolanguage field can only occur in records of type 'language'.
   Only values assigned by ISO 639-3 will be considered for inclusion.
   Macrolanguage fields MAY be added or removed via the normal
   registration process whenever ISO 639-3 defines new values or
   withdraws old values.  Macrolanguages are informational, and MAY be
   removed or changed if ISO 639-3 changes the values.




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 26]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   For example, the language subtags 'nb' (Norwegian Bokmal) and 'nn'
   (Norwegian Nynorsk) each have a Macrolanguage entry of 'no'
   (Norwegian).  For more information see Section 4.1.

3.1.10.  Comments Field

   The field 'Comments' conveys additional information about the record
   and MAY appear more than once per record.  The field-body MAY include
   the full range of Unicode characters and is not restricted to any
   particular script.  This field MAY be inserted or changed via the
   registration process and no guarantee of stability is provided.  The
   content of this field is not restricted, except by the need to
   register the information, the suitability of the request, and by
   reasonable practical size limitations.

3.2.  Language Subtag Reviewer

   The Language Subtag Reviewer moderates the ietf-languages mailing
   list, responds to requests for registration, and performs the other
   registry maintenance duties described in Section 3.3.  Only the
   Language Subtag Reviewer is permitted to request IANA to change,
   update, or add records to the Language Subtag Registry.  The Language
   Subtag Reviewer MAY delegate list moderation and other clerical
   duties as needed.

   The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG for an
   indefinite term, subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's
   discretion.  The IESG will solicit nominees for the position (upon
   adoption of this document or upon a vacancy) and then solicit
   feedback on the nominees' qualifications.  Qualified candidates
   should be familiar with BCP 47 and its requirements; be willing to
   fairly, responsively, and judiciously administer the registration
   process; and be suitably informed about the issues of language
   identification so that they can draw upon and assess the claim and
   contributions of language experts and subtag requesters.

   The subsequent performance or decisions of the Language Subtag
   Reviewer MAY be appealed to the IESG under the same rules as other
   IETF decisions (see [RFC2026]).  The IESG can reverse or overturn the
   decision of the Language Subtag Reviewer, provide guidance, or take
   other appropriate actions.

3.3.  Maintenance of the Registry

   Maintenance of the registry requires that as codes are assigned or
   withdrawn by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49, the Language
   Subtag Reviewer MUST evaluate each change and determine the
   appropriate course of action according to the rules in this document.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 27]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   Such updates follow the registration process described in
   Section 3.5.  Usually the Language Subtag Reviewer will start the
   process for the new or updated record by filling in the registration
   form and submitting it.  If a change to one of these standards takes
   place and the Language Subtag Reviewer does not do this in a timely
   manner, then any interested party MAY submit the form.  Thereafter
   the registration process continues normally.

   The Language Subtag Reviewer MUST ensure that new subtags meet the
   requirements elsewhere in this document (and most especially in
   Section 3.4) or submit an appropriate registration form for an
   alternate subtag as described in that section.  Each individual
   subtag affected by a change MUST be sent to the ietf-languages list
   with its own registration form and in a separate message.

3.4.  Stability of IANA Registry Entries

   The stability of entries and their meaning in the registry is
   critical to the long-term stability of language tags.  The rules in
   this section guarantee that a specific language tag's meaning is
   stable over time and will not change.

   These rules specifically deal with how changes to codes (including
   withdrawal and deprecation of codes) maintained by ISO 639, ISO
   15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49 are reflected in the IANA Language
   Subtag Registry.  Assignments to the IANA Language Subtag Registry
   MUST follow the following stability rules:

   1.   Values in the fields 'Type', 'Subtag', 'Tag', 'Added',
        'Deprecated' and 'Preferred-Value' MUST NOT be changed and are
        guaranteed to be stable over time.

   2.   Values in the 'Description' field MUST NOT be changed in a way
        that would invalidate previously-existing tags.  They MAY be
        broadened somewhat in scope, changed to add information, or
        adapted to the most common modern usage.  For example, countries
        occasionally change their official names; a historical example
        of this would be "Upper Volta" changing to "Burkina Faso".

   3.   Values in the field 'Prefix' MAY be added to records of type
        'variant' via the registration process.  If a prefix is added to
        a variant record, 'Comment' fields SHOULD be used to explain
        different usages with the various prefixes.

   4.   Values in the field 'Prefix' in records of type 'variant' MAY be
        modified, so long as the modifications broaden the set of
        prefixes.  That is, a prefix MAY be replaced by one of its own
        prefixes.  For example, the prefix "en-US" could be replaced by



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 28]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


        "en", but not by the prefixes "en-Latn", "fr", or "en-US-boont".
        If one of those prefixes were needed, a new Prefix SHOULD be
        registered.

   5.   Values in the field 'Prefix' MUST NOT be removed.

   6.   The field 'Comments' MAY be added, changed, modified, or removed
        via the registration process or any of the processes or
        considerations described in this section.

   7.   The field 'Suppress-Script' MAY be added or removed via the
        registration process.

   8.   The field 'Macrolanguage' MAY be added or removed via the
        registration process, but only in response to changes made by
        ISO 639.  The Macrolanguage field appears whenever a language
        has a corresponding Macrolanguage in ISO 639.  That is, the
        macrolanguage fields in the registry exactly match those of ISO
        639.  No other macrolanguage mappings will be considered for
        registration.

   9.   Codes assigned by ISO 639-1 that do not conflict with existing
        two-letter primary language subtags and which have no
        corresponding three-letter primary or extended language subtags
        defined in the registry are entered into the IANA registry as
        new records of type 'language'.

   10.  Codes assigned by ISO 639-2 that do not conflict with existing
        three-letter primary or extended language subtags are entered
        into the IANA registry as new records of type 'language'.

   11.  Codes assigned by ISO 639-3 that do not conflict with existing
        three-letter primary language subtags are entered into the IANA
        registry as new primary language records.

   12.  Codes assigned by ISO 15924 and ISO 3166 that do not conflict
        with existing subtags of the associated type and whose meaning
        is not the same as an existing subtag of the same type are
        entered into the IANA registry as new records.

   13.  Codes assigned by ISO 639, ISO 15924, or ISO 3166 that are
        withdrawn by their respective maintenance or registration
        authority remain valid in language tags.  A 'Deprecated' field
        containing the date of withdrawal MUST be added to the record.
        If a new record of the same type is added that represents a
        replacement value, then a 'Preferred-Value' field MAY also be
        added.  The registration process MAY be used to add comments
        about the withdrawal of the code by the respective standard.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 29]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


        Example  The region code 'TL' was assigned to the country
           'Timor-Leste', replacing the code 'TP' (which was assigned to
           'East Timor' when it was under administration by Portugal).
           The subtag 'TP' remains valid in language tags, but its
           record contains the a 'Preferred-Value' of 'TL' and its field
           'Deprecated' contains the date the new code was assigned
           ('2004-07-06').

   14.  Codes assigned by ISO 639, ISO 15924, or ISO 3166 that conflict
        with existing subtags of the associated type, including subtags
        that are deprecated, MUST NOT be entered into the registry.  The
        following additional considerations apply to subtag values that
        are reassigned:

        A.  For ISO 639 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is
            not represented by a subtag in the IANA registry, the
            Language Subtag Reviewer, as described in Section 3.5, SHALL
            prepare a proposal for entering in the IANA registry as soon
            as practical a registered language subtag as an alternate
            value for the new code.  The form of the registered language
            subtag will be at the discretion of the Language Subtag
            Reviewer and MUST conform to other restrictions on language
            subtags in this document.

        B.  For all subtags whose meaning is derived from an external
            standard (that is, by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, or UN
            M.49), if a new meaning is assigned to an existing code and
            the new meaning broadens the meaning of that code, then the
            meaning for the associated subtag MAY be changed to match.
            The meaning of a subtag MUST NOT be narrowed, however, as
            this can result in an unknown proportion of the existing
            uses of a subtag becoming invalid.  Note: ISO 639
            maintenance agency/registration authority (MA/RA) has
            adopted a similar stability policy.

        C.  For ISO 15924 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is
            not represented by a subtag in the IANA registry, the
            Language Subtag Reviewer, as described in Section 3.5, SHALL
            prepare a proposal for entering in the IANA registry as soon
            as practical a registered variant subtag as an alternate
            value for the new code.  The form of the registered variant
            subtag will be at the discretion of the Language Subtag
            Reviewer and MUST conform to other restrictions on variant
            subtags in this document.

        D.  For ISO 3166 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is
            associated with the same UN M.49 code as another 'region'
            subtag, then the existing region subtag remains as the



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 30]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


            preferred value for that region and no new entry is created.
            A comment MAY be added to the existing region subtag
            indicating the relationship to the new ISO 3166 code.

        E.  For ISO 3166 codes, if the newly assigned code's meaning is
            associated with a UN M.49 code that is not represented by an
            existing region subtag, then the Language Subtag Reviewer,
            as described in Section 3.5, SHALL prepare a proposal for
            entering the appropriate UN M.49 country code as an entry in
            the IANA registry.

        F.  For ISO 3166 codes, if there is no associated UN numeric
            code, then the Language Subtag Reviewer SHALL petition the
            UN to create one.  If there is no response from the UN
            within ninety days of the request being sent, the Language
            Subtag Reviewer SHALL prepare a proposal for entering in the
            IANA registry as soon as practical a registered variant
            subtag as an alternate value for the new code.  The form of
            the registered variant subtag will be at the discretion of
            the Language Subtag Reviewer and MUST conform to other
            restrictions on variant subtags in this document.  This
            situation is very unlikely to ever occur.

   15.  UN M.49 has codes for both countries and areas (such as '276'
        for Germany) and geographical regions and sub-regions (such as
        '150' for Europe).  UN M.49 country or area codes for which
        there is no corresponding ISO 3166 code SHOULD NOT be
        registered, except as a surrogate for an ISO 3166 code that is
        blocked from registration by an existing subtag.  If such a code
        becomes necessary, then the registration authority for ISO 3166
        SHOULD first be petitioned to assign a code to the region.  If
        the petition for a code assignment by ISO 3166 is refused or not
        acted on in a timely manner, the registration process described
        in Section 3.5 MAY then be used to register the corresponding UN
        M.49 code.  This way, UN M.49 codes remain available as the
        value of last resort in cases where ISO 3166 reassigns a
        deprecated value in the registry.

   16.  Stability provisions apply to grandfathered tags with this
        exception: should it be possible to compose one of the
        grandfathered tags from registered subtags, then the field
        'Type' in that record is changed from 'grandfathered' to
        'redundant'.  Note that this will not affect language tags that
        match the grandfathered tag, since these tags will now match
        valid generative subtag sequences.  For example, this document
        caused the ISO 639-3 code 'gan', used in the redundant tag "zh-
        gan", to be registered as an extended language subtag.  The
        formerly-grandfathered tag "zh-gan" became a redundant tag as a



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 31]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


        result (but existing content or implementations that use "zh-
        gan" remain valid).

   Note: The redundant and grandfathered entries together are the
   complete list of tags registered under [RFC3066].  The redundant tags
   are those that can now be formed using the subtags defined in the
   registry together with the rules of Section 2.2.  The grandfathered
   entries include those that can never be legal under those same
   provisions plus those tags that contain subtags not yet registered
   or, perhaps, inappropriate for registration.

   The set of redundant and grandfathered tags is permanent and stable:
   new entries in this section MUST NOT be added and existing entries
   MUST NOT be removed.  Records of type 'grandfathered' MAY have their
   type converted to 'redundant'; see item 12 in Section 3.6 for more
   information.  The decision-making process about which tags were
   initially grandfathered and which were made redundant is described in
   [RFC4645].

   RFC 3066 tags that were deprecated prior to the adoption of [RFC4646]
   are part of the list of grandfathered tags, and their component
   subtags were not included as registered variants (although they
   remain eligible for registration).  For example, the tag "art-lojban"
   was deprecated in favor of the language subtag 'jbo'.

3.5.  Registration Procedure for Subtags

   The procedure given here MUST be used by anyone who wants to use a
   subtag not currently in the IANA Language Subtag Registry.

   Only subtags of type 'language' and 'variant' will be considered for
   independent registration of new subtags.  Subtags needed for
   stability and subtags necessary to keep the registry synchronized
   with ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49 within the limits
   defined by this document also use this process, as described in
   Section 3.3.  Stability provisions are described in Section 3.4.

   This procedure MAY also be used to register or alter the information
   for the 'Description', 'Comments', 'Deprecated', 'Prefix', or
   'Suppress-Script' fields in a subtag's record as described in
   Section 3.4.  Changes to all other fields in the IANA registry are
   NOT permitted.

   Registering a new subtag or requesting modifications to an existing
   tag or subtag starts with the requester filling out the registration
   form reproduced below.  Note that each response is not limited in
   size so that the request can adequately describe the registration.
   The fields in the "Record Requested" section SHOULD follow the



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 32]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   requirements in Section 3.1.

   LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
   1. Name of requester:
   2. E-mail address of requester:
   3. Record Requested:

      Type:
      Subtag:
      Description:
      Prefix:
      Preferred-Value:
      Deprecated:
      Suppress-Script:
      Macrolanguage:
      Comments:

   4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
   5. Reference to published description
      of the language (book or article):
   6. Any other relevant information:

              Figure 4: The Language Subtag Registration Form

   Examples of completed registration forms can be found in Appendix C
   or online at http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/.

   The subtag registration form MUST be sent to
   <ietf-languages@iana.org> for a two-week review period before it can
   be submitted to IANA.  If modifications are made to the request
   during the course of the registration process (such as corrections to
   meet the requirements in Section 3.1) the modified form MUST also be
   sent to <ietf-languages@iana.org> at least one week prior to
   submission to IANA.

   Whenever an entry is created or modified in the registry, the 'File-
   Date' record at the start of the registry is updated to reflect the
   most recent modification date in the [RFC3339] "full-date" format.

   Before forwarding a new registration to IANA, the Language Subtag
   Reviewer MUST ensure that values in the 'Subtag' field match case
   according to the description in Section 3.1.

   The ietf-languages list is an open list and can be joined by sending
   a request to <ietf-languages-request@iana.org>.  The list can be
   hosted by IANA or by any third party at the request of IESG.

   Some fields in both the registration form as well as the registry



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 33]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   record itself permit the use of non-ASCII characters.  Registration
   requests SHOULD use the UTF-8 encoding for consistency and clarity.
   However, since some mail clients do not support this encoding, other
   encodings MAY be used for the registration request.  The Language
   Subtag Reviewer is responsible for ensuring that the proper Unicode
   characters appear in both the archived request form and the registry
   record.  In the case of a transcription or encoding error by IANA,
   the Language Subtag Reviewer will request that the registry be
   repaired, providing any necessary information to assist IANA.

   Variant subtags are usually registered for use with a particular
   range of language tags.  For example, the subtag 'rozaj' is intended
   for use with language tags that start with the primary language
   subtag "sl", since Resian is a dialect of Slovenian.  Thus, the
   subtag 'rozaj' would be appropriate in tags such as "sl-Latn-rozaj"
   or "sl-IT-rozaj".  This information is stored in the 'Prefix' field
   in the registry.  Variant registration requests SHOULD include at
   least one 'Prefix' field in the registration form.

   Extended language subtags MUST include exactly one 'Prefix' field.

   The 'Prefix' field for a given registered subtag exists in the IANA
   registry as a guide to usage.  Additional prefixes MAY be added by
   filing an additional registration form.  In that form, the "Any other
   relevant information:" field MUST indicate that it is the addition of
   a prefix.

   Requests to add a prefix to a variant subtag that imply a different
   semantic meaning will probably be rejected.  For example, a request
   to add the prefix "de" to the subtag 'nedis' so that the tag "de-
   nedis" represented some German dialect would be rejected.  The
   'nedis' subtag represents a particular Slovenian dialect and the
   additional registration would change the semantic meaning assigned to
   the subtag.  A separate subtag SHOULD be proposed instead.

   The 'Description' field MUST contain a description of the tag being
   registered written or transcribed into the Latin script; it MAY also
   include a description in a non-Latin script.  The 'Description' field
   is used for identification purposes and doesn't necessarily represent
   the actual native name of the language or variation or to be in any
   particular language.

   While the 'Description' field itself is not guaranteed to be stable
   and errata corrections MAY be undertaken from time to time, attempts
   to provide translations or transcriptions of entries in the registry
   itself will probably be frowned upon by the community or rejected
   outright, as changes of this nature have an impact on the provisions
   in Section 3.4.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 34]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   When the two-week period has passed, the Language Subtag Reviewer
   MUST take one of the following actions:

   o  Explicitly accept the request and forward the form containing the
      record to be inserted or modified to iana@iana.org according to
      the procedure described in Section 3.3.

   o  Explicitly reject the request because of significant objections
      raised on the list or due to problems with constraints in this
      document (which MUST be explicitly cited).

   o  Extend the review period by granting an additional two-week
      increment to permit further discussion.  After each two-week
      increment, the Language Subtag Reviewer MUST indicate on the list
      whether the registration has been accepted, rejected, or extended.

   Note that the Language Subtag Reviewer MAY raise objections on the
   list if he or she so desires.  The important thing is that the
   objection MUST be made publicly.

   Sometimes the request needs to be modified as a result of discussion
   during the review period or due to requirements in this document.
   The applicant, Language Subtag Reviewer, or others are free to submit
   a modified version of the completed registration form, which will be
   considered in lieu of the original request with the explicit approval
   of the applicant.  Such changes do not restart the two-week
   discussion period, although an application containing the final
   record submitted to IANA MUST appear on the list at least one week
   prior to the Language Subtag Reviewer forwarding the record to IANA.
   The applicant is also free to modify a rejected application with
   additional information and submit it again; this starts a new two-
   week comment period.

   Registrations initiated due to the provisions of Section 3.3 or
   Section 3.4 SHALL NOT be rejected altogether (since they have to
   ultimately appear in the registry) and SHOULD be completed as quickly
   as possible.  The review process allows list members to comment on
   the specific information in the form and the record it contains and
   thus help ensure that it is correct and consistent.  The Language
   Subtag Reviewer MAY reject a specific version of the form, but MUST
   include in the rejection a suitable replacement, extending the review
   period as described above, until the form is in a format worthy of
   reviewer's approval.

   Decisions made by the Language Subtag Reviewer MAY be appealed to the
   IESG [RFC2028] under the same rules as other IETF decisions
   [RFC2026].  This includes a decision to extend the review period or
   the failure to announce a decision in a clear and timely manner.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 35]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   The approved records appear in the Language Subtag Registry.  The
   approved registration forms are available online under
   http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/.

   Updates or changes to existing records follow the same procedure as
   new registrations.  The Language Subtag Reviewer decides whether
   there is consensus to update the registration following the two week
   review period; normally, objections by the original registrant will
   carry extra weight in forming such a consensus.

   Registrations are permanent and stable.  Once registered, subtags
   will not be removed from the registry and will remain a valid way in
   which to specify a specific language or variant.

   Note: The purpose of the "Reference to published description" section
   in the registration form is to aid in verifying whether a language is
   registered or what language or language variation a particular subtag
   refers to.  In most cases, reference to an authoritative grammar or
   dictionary of that language will be useful; in cases where no such
   work exists, other well-known works describing that language or in
   that language MAY be appropriate.  The Language Subtag Reviewer
   decides what constitutes "good enough" reference material.  This
   requirement is not intended to exclude particular languages or
   dialects due to the size of the speaker population or lack of a
   standardized orthography.  Minority languages will be considered
   equally on their own merits.

3.6.  Possibilities for Registration

   Possibilities for registration of subtags or information about
   subtags include:

   o  Primary language subtags for languages not listed in ISO 639 that
      are not variants of any listed or registered language MAY be
      registered.  At the time this document was created, there were no
      examples of this form of subtag.  Before attempting to register a
      language subtag, there MUST be an attempt to register the language
      with ISO 639.  Subtags MUST NOT be registered for languages
      defined by codes that exist in ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2, or ISO 639-3,
      or that are under consideration by the ISO 639 registration
      authorities, or that have never been attempted for registration
      with those authorities.  If ISO 639 has previously rejected a
      language for registration, it is reasonable to assume that there
      must be additional, very compelling evidence of need before it
      will be registered as a primary language subtag in the IANA
      registry (to the extent that it is very unlikely that any subtags
      will be registered of this type).




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 36]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   o  Dialect or other divisions or variations within a language, its
      orthography, writing system, regional or historical usage,
      transliteration or other transformation, or distinguishing
      variation MAY be registered as variant subtags.  An example is the
      'rozaj' subtag (the Resian dialect of Slovenian).

   o  The addition or maintenance of fields (generally of an
      informational nature) in Tag or Subtag records as described in
      Section 3.1 and subject to the stability provisions in
      Section 3.4.  This includes descriptions, comments, deprecation
      and preferred values for obsolete or withdrawn codes, or the
      addition of script or macrolanguage information to primary
      language subtags.

   o  The addition of records and related field value changes necessary
      to reflect assignments made by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and
      UN M.49 as described in Section 3.4.

   Subtags proposed for registration that would cause all or part of a
   grandfathered tag to become redundant but whose meaning conflicts
   with or alters the meaning of the grandfathered tag MUST be rejected.

   This document leaves the decision on what subtags or changes to
   subtags are appropriate (or not) to the registration process
   described in Section 3.5.

   Note: four-character primary language subtags are reserved to allow
   for the possibility of alpha4 codes in some future addition to the
   ISO 639 family of standards.

   ISO 639 defines a maintenance agency for additions to and changes in
   the list of languages in ISO 639.  This agency is:

   International Information Centre for Terminology (Infoterm)
   Aichholzgasse 6/12, AT-1120
   Wien, Austria
   Phone: +43 1 26 75 35 Ext. 312 Fax: +43 1 216 32 72

   ISO 639-2 defines a maintenance agency for additions to and changes
   in the list of languages in ISO 639-2.  This agency is:

   Library of Congress
   Network Development and MARC Standards Office
   Washington, D.C. 20540 USA
   Phone: +1 202 707 6237 Fax: +1 202 707 0115
   URL: http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2

   ISO 639-3 defines a maintenance agency for additions to and changes



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 37]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   in the list of languages in ISO 639-3.  This agency is:

   SIL International
   ISO 639-3 Registrar
   7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
   Dallas, TX 75236 USA
   Phone: +1 972 708 7400, ext. 2293 Fax: +1 972 708 7546
   Email: iso639-3@sil.org
   URL: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3

   The maintenance agency for ISO 3166 (country codes) is:

   ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency
   c/o International Organization for Standardization
   Case postale 56
   CH-1211 Geneva 20 Switzerland
   Phone: +41 22 749 72 33 Fax: +41 22 749 73 49
   URL: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/index.html

   The registration authority for ISO 15924 (script codes) is:

   Unicode Consortium Box 391476
   Mountain View, CA 94039-1476, USA
   URL: http://www.unicode.org/iso15924

   The Statistics Division of the United Nations Secretariat maintains
   the Standard Country or Area Codes for Statistical Use and can be
   reached at:

   Statistical Services Branch
   Statistics Division
   United Nations, Room DC2-1620
   New York, NY 10017, USA

   Fax: +1-212-963-0623
   E-mail: statistics@un.org
   URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm

3.7.  Extensions and Extensions Registry

   Extension subtags are those introduced by single-character subtags
   ("singletons") other than 'x'.  They are reserved for the generation
   of identifiers that contain a language component and are compatible
   with applications that understand language tags.

   The structure and form of extensions are defined by this document so
   that implementations can be created that are forward compatible with
   applications that might be created using singletons in the future.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 38]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   In addition, defining a mechanism for maintaining singletons will
   lend stability to this document by reducing the likely need for
   future revisions or updates.

   Single-character subtags are assigned by IANA using the "IETF
   Consensus" policy defined by [RFC2434].  This policy requires the
   development of an RFC, which SHALL define the name, purpose,
   processes, and procedures for maintaining the subtags.  The
   maintaining or registering authority, including name, contact email,
   discussion list email, and URL location of the registry, MUST be
   indicated clearly in the RFC.  The RFC MUST specify or include each
   of the following:

   o  The specification MUST reference the specific version or revision
      of this document that governs its creation and MUST reference this
      section of this document.

   o  The specification and all subtags defined by the specification
      MUST follow the ABNF and other rules for the formation of tags and
      subtags as defined in this document.  In particular, it MUST
      specify that case is not significant and that subtags MUST NOT
      exceed eight characters in length.

   o  The specification MUST specify a canonical representation.

   o  The specification of valid subtags MUST be available over the
      Internet and at no cost.

   o  The specification MUST be in the public domain or available via a
      royalty-free license acceptable to the IETF and specified in the
      RFC.

   o  The specification MUST be versioned, and each version of the
      specification MUST be numbered, dated, and stable.

   o  The specification MUST be stable.  That is, extension subtags,
      once defined by a specification, MUST NOT be retracted or change
      in meaning in any substantial way.

   o  The specification MUST include in a separate section the
      registration form reproduced in this section (below) to be used in
      registering the extension upon publication as an RFC.

   o  IANA MUST be informed of changes to the contact information and
      URL for the specification.

   IANA will maintain a registry of allocated single-character
   (singleton) subtags.  This registry MUST use the record-jar format



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 39]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   described by the ABNF in Section 3.1.  Upon publication of an
   extension as an RFC, the maintaining authority defined in the RFC
   MUST forward this registration form to iesg@ietf.org, who MUST
   forward the request to iana@iana.org.  The maintaining authority of
   the extension MUST maintain the accuracy of the record by sending an
   updated full copy of the record to iana@iana.org with the subject
   line "LANGUAGE TAG EXTENSION UPDATE" whenever content changes.  Only
   the 'Comments', 'Contact_Email', 'Mailing_List', and 'URL' fields MAY
   be modified in these updates.

   Failure to maintain this record, maintain the corresponding registry,
   or meet other conditions imposed by this section of this document MAY
   be appealed to the IESG [RFC2028] under the same rules as other IETF
   decisions (see [RFC2026]) and MAY result in the authority to maintain
   the extension being withdrawn or reassigned by the IESG.
   %%
   Identifier:
   Description:
   Comments:
   Added:
   RFC:
   Authority:
   Contact_Email:
   Mailing_List:
   URL:
   %%

    Figure 5: Format of Records in the Language Tag Extensions Registry

   'Identifier' contains the single-character subtag (singleton)
   assigned to the extension.  The Internet-Draft submitted to define
   the extension SHOULD specify which letter or digit to use, although
   the IESG MAY change the assignment when approving the RFC.

   'Description' contains the name and description of the extension.

   'Comments' is an OPTIONAL field and MAY contain a broader description
   of the extension.

   'Added' contains the date the RFC was published in the "full-date"
   format specified in [RFC3339].  For example: 2004-06-28 represents
   June 28, 2004, in the Gregorian calendar.

   'RFC' contains the RFC number assigned to the extension.

   'Authority' contains the name of the maintaining authority for the
   extension.




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 40]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   'Contact_Email' contains the email address used to contact the
   maintaining authority.

   'Mailing_List' contains the URL or subscription email address of the
   mailing list used by the maintaining authority.

   'URL' contains the URL of the registry for this extension.

   The determination of whether an Internet-Draft meets the above
   conditions and the decision to grant or withhold such authority rests
   solely with the IESG and is subject to the normal review and appeals
   process associated with the RFC process.

   Extension authors are strongly cautioned that many (including most
   well-formed) processors will be unaware of any special relationships
   or meaning inherent in the order of extension subtags.  Extension
   authors SHOULD avoid subtag relationships or canonicalization
   mechanisms that interfere with matching or with length restrictions
   that sometimes exist in common protocols where the extension is used.
   In particular, applications MAY truncate the subtags in doing
   matching or in fitting into limited lengths, so it is RECOMMENDED
   that the most significant information be in the most significant
   (left-most) subtags and that the specification gracefully handle
   truncated subtags.

   When a language tag is to be used in a specific, known, protocol, it
   is RECOMMENDED that that the language tag not contain extensions not
   supported by that protocol.  In addition, note that some protocols
   MAY impose upper limits on the length of the strings used to store or
   transport the language tag.

3.8.  Update of the Language Subtag Registry

   Upon adoption of this document the IANA Language Subtag Registry will
   need an update so that it contains the complete set of subtags valid
   in a language tag.  This collection of subtags, along with a
   description of the process used to create it, is described by
   [registry-update].  IANA will publish the updated version of the
   registry described by this document using the instructions and
   content of [registry-update].  Once published by IANA, the
   maintenance procedures, rules, and registration processes described
   in this document will be available for new registrations or updates.

   Registrations that are in process under the rules defined in
   [RFC4646] when this document is adopted MUST be completed under the
   rules contained in this document.





Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 41]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


4.  Formation and Processing of Language Tags

   This section addresses how to use the information in the registry
   with the tag syntax to choose, form, and process language tags.

4.1.  Choice of Language Tag

   The guiding principle in forming language tags is to "tag content
   wisely."  Sometimes there is a choice between several possible tags
   for the same content.  The choice of which tag to use depends on the
   content and application in question and some amount of judgment might
   be necessary when selecting a tag.

   Interoperability is best served when the same language tag is used
   consistently to represent the same language.  If an application has
   requirements that make the rules here inapplicable, then that
   application risks damaging interoperability.  It is strongly
   RECOMMENDED that users not define their own rules for language tag
   choice.

   A subtag SHOULD only be used when it adds useful distinguishing
   information to the tag.  Extraneous subtags interfere with the
   meaning, understanding, and processing of language tags.  In
   particular, users and implementations SHOULD follow the 'Prefix' and
   'Suppress-Script' fields in the registry (defined in Section 3.1):
   these fields provide guidance on when specific additional subtags
   SHOULD be used or avoided in a language tag.

   Some applications can benefit from the use of script subtags in
   language tags, as long as the use is consistent for a given context.
   Script subtags are never appropriate for unwritten content (such as
   audio recordings).

   Script subtags were not formally defined in [RFC3066] and their use
   can affect matching and subtag identification for implementations of
   RFC 3066, as these subtags appear between the primary language and
   region subtags.  For example, if an implementation selects content
   using Basic Filtering [RFC4647] (originally described in Section 2.5
   of [RFC3066]) and the user requested the language range "en-US",
   content labeled "en-Latn-US" will not match the request and thus not
   be selected.  Therefore, it is important to know when script subtags
   will customarily be used and when they ought not be used.  In the
   registry, the Suppress-Script field helps ensure greater
   compatibility between the language tags by defining when users SHOULD
   NOT include a script subtag with a particular primary language
   subtag.

   The choice of subtags used to form a language tag SHOULD be guided by



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 42]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   the following rules:

   1.  Use as precise a tag as possible, but no more specific than is
       justified.  Avoid using subtags that are not important for
       distinguishing content in an application.

       *  For example, 'de' might suffice for tagging an email written
          in German, while "de-CH-1996" is probably unnecessarily
          precise for such a task.

   2.  The script subtag SHOULD NOT be used to form language tags unless
       the script adds some distinguishing information to the tag.  The
       field 'Suppress-Script' in the primary language record in the
       registry indicates script subtags that do not add distinguishing
       information for most applications.  For example:

       *  The subtag 'Latn' should not be used with the primary language
          'en' because nearly all English documents are written in the
          Latin script and it adds no distinguishing information.
          However, if a document were written in English mixing Latin
          script with another script such as Braille ('Brai'), then it
          might be appropriate to choose to indicate both scripts to aid
          in content selection, such as the application of a style
          sheet.

       *  When labeling content that is unwritten (such as a recording
          of human speech), the script subtag should not be used, even
          if the language is customarily written in several scripts.
          Thus the subtitles to a movie might use the tag "zh-cmn-Hant"
          (Chinese, Mandarin, Traditional script), but the audio track
          for the same language would be tagged "zh-cmn".

   3.  If a tag or subtag has a 'Preferred-Value' field in its registry
       entry, then the value of that field SHOULD be used to form the
       language tag in preference to the tag or subtag in which the
       preferred value appears.

       *  For example, use 'he' for Hebrew in preference to 'iw'.

   4.  [ISO639-2] has defined several codes included in the subtag
       registry that require additional care when choosing language
       tags.  In most of these cases, where omitting the language tag is
       permitted, such omission is preferable to using these codes.
       Language tags SHOULD NOT incorporate these subtags as a prefix,
       unless the additional information conveys some value to the
       application.





Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 43]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


       1.  Use specific language subtags or subtag sequences in
           preference to subtags for language collections.  A "language
           collection" is a subtag derived from one of the [ISO639-2]
           codes that represents multiple related languages.  These
           codes are included as primary language subtags in the
           registry.  For example, the code 'cmc' represents "Chamic
           languages".  The registry contains values for each of the
           approximately ten individual languages represented by this
           collective code.  Some other examples include the subtags
           Germanic languages ('gem') or Algonquian languages ('alg').
           Since these codes are interpreted inclusively, content tagged
           with "en" (English), "de" (German), or "gsw" (Swiss German,
           Alemannic) could also (but SHOULD NOT) be tagged with "gem"
           (Germanic languages).  Subtags derived from collection codes
           SHOULD NOT be used be used unless more specific language
           information is not available.  Note that matching
           implementations generally do not understand the relationship
           between the collection and its encompassed languages, and so
           users ought not assume a subtag based on a language
           collection is a useful means for selecting content in its
           encompassed languages.

       2.  The 'mul' (Multiple) primary language subtag identifies
           content in multiple languages.  It SHOULD NOT be used when a
           list of languages (such as Content-Language) or individual
           tags for each content element can be used instead.

       3.  The 'und' (Undetermined) primary language subtag identifies
           linguistic content whose language is not known.  It SHOULD
           NOT be used unless a language tag is required and language
           information is not available or cannot be determined.
           Omitting the language tag (where permitted) is preferred.
           The 'und' subtag MAY be useful for protocols that require a
           language tag to be provided or where a primary language
           subtag is required (such as in "und-Latn").  The 'und' subtag
           MAY also be useful when matching language tags in certain
           situations.

       4.  The 'zxx' (Non-Linguistic) primary language subtag identifies
           content that has no language.  Some examples might include
           instrumental or electronic music; sound recordings consisting
           of nonverbal sounds; audiovisual materials with no narration,
           printed titles, or subtitles; machine-readable data files
           consisting of machine languages or character codes; or
           programming source code.  Note: where there are fragments of
           linguistic content, such as programming source code
           containing comments written in English, the subtag 'zxx'
           might still be used to indicate the primary status of the



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 44]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


           content, just as 'en' can be applied to a predominantly
           English text that contains a few French phrases.

       5.  The 'mis' (Uncoded) primary language subtag identifies
           content whose language is known but which does not currently
           have a corresponding subtag.  This subtag SHOULD NOT be used.
           Because the addition of other codes in the future can render
           its application invalid, it is inherently unstable and hence
           incompatible with the stability goals of BCP 47.  It is
           always preferable to use other subtags: either 'und' or (with
           prior agreement) private use subtags.

       6.  The grandfathered tag "i-default" (Default Language) was
           originally registered according to [RFC1766] to meet the
           needs of [RFC2277].  It is used to indicate not a specific
           language, but rather, it identifies the condition or content
           used where the language preferences of the user cannot be
           established.  It SHOULD NOT be used except as a means of
           labeling the default content for applications or protocols
           that require default language content to be labeled with that
           specific tag.  It MAY also be used by an application or
           protocol to identify when the default language content is
           being returned.

   5.  The same variant subtag MUST NOT be used more than once within a
       language tag.

       *  For example, the tag "de-DE-1901-1901" is not valid.

   Languages with a Macrolanguage field in the registry sometimes can be
   usefully referenced using their Macrolanguage.  However, the
   Macrolanguage field doesn't define what the relationship is between
   the language subtag whose record it appears in and its encompassed
   language or languages.  Nor does it define how the encompassed
   languages are related to one-another.  In some cases, the
   Macrolanguage has a standard form as well as a variety of less-common
   dialects.  In other cases there is no particular standard form and
   the encompassed subtags describe specific variations within the
   parent language.

   Applications MAY use Macrolanguage information to improve matching or
   language negotiation.  For example, the information that 'sr'
   (Serbian) and 'hr' (Croatian) share a Macrolanguage expresses a
   closer relation between those languages than between, say, 'sr'
   (Serbian) and 'ma' (Macedonian).  It is valid to use the encompassed
   language or just its Macrolanguage to form language tags.  However,
   many matching applications will not be aware of the relationship
   between the languages.  Care in selecting which subtags are used is



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 45]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   crucial to interoperability.  In general, use the most specific tag.
   However, where the standard form of an encompassed language is
   captured by the Macrolanguage, the Macrolanguage SHOULD be used in
   preference to one of its sublanguages unless there is a specific
   reason not to.

   In particular, the Chinese family of languages call for special
   consideration.  Because the written form is very similar for most
   languages having 'zh' as a Macrolanguage (and because historically
   subtags for the various sub-languages and dialects were not
   available), languages such as 'yue' (Cantonese) have usually used
   tags beginning with the subtag 'zh'.  This means that Macrolanguage
   information can be usefully applied when searching for content or
   when providing fallbacks in language negotiation.  For example, the
   information that 'yue' has a macrolangauge of 'zh' could be used in
   the Lookup algorithm to fallback from a request for "yue-Hans-CN" to
   "zh-Hans-CN" without losing the script and region information (even
   though the user did not specify "zh-Hans-CN" in their request).

   To ensure consistent backward compatibility, this document contains
   several provisions to account for potential instability in the
   standards used to define the subtags that make up language tags.
   These provisions mean that no language tag created under the rules in
   this document will become invalid.

   Standards, protocols, and applications that reference this document
   normatively but apply different rules to the ones given in this
   section MUST specify how language tag selection varies from the
   guidelines given here.

4.2.  Meaning of the Language Tag

   The meaning of a language tag is related to the meaning of the
   subtags that it contains.  Each subtag, in turn, implies a certain
   range of expectations one might have for related content, although it
   is not a guarantee.  For example, the use of a script subtag such as
   'Arab' (Arabic script) does not mean that the content contains only
   Arabic characters.  It does mean that the language involved is
   predominently in the Arabic script.  Thus a language tag and its
   subtags can encompass a very wide range of variation and yet remain
   valid in each particular instance.

   Validity of a tag is not everything.  While every valid tag has a
   meaning, it might not represent any real-world language usage.  This
   is unavoidable in a system in which subtags can be combined freely.
   For example, tags such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as
   used in Colombia ) or "tlh-Kore-AQ-fonipa" (Klingon, Korean script,
   as used in Antarctica, IPA phonetic transcription) are both valid and



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 46]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   unlikely to represent a useful combination of language attributes.

   The relationship between the tag and the information it identifies is
   defined by the context in which the tag appears.  Accordingly, this
   section gives only possible examples of its usage.

   o  For a single information object, the associated language tags
      might be interpreted as the set of languages that is necessary for
      a complete comprehension of the complete object.  Example: Plain
      text documents.

   o  For an aggregation of information objects, the associated language
      tags could be taken as the set of languages used inside components
      of that aggregation.  Examples: Document stores and libraries.

   o  For information objects whose purpose is to provide alternatives,
      the associated language tags could be regarded as a hint that the
      content is provided in several languages and that one has to
      inspect each of the alternatives in order to find its language or
      languages.  In this case, the presence of multiple tags might not
      mean that one needs to be multi-lingual to get complete
      understanding of the document.  Example: MIME multipart/
      alternative.

   o  In markup languages, such as HTML and XML, language information
      can be added to each part of the document identified by the markup
      structure (including the whole document itself).  For example, one
      could write <span lang="fr">C'est la vie.</span> inside a
      Norwegian document; the Norwegian-speaking user could then access
      a French-Norwegian dictionary to find out what the marked section
      meant.  If the user were listening to that document through a
      speech synthesis interface, this formation could be used to signal
      the synthesizer to appropriately apply French text-to-speech
      pronunciation rules to that span of text, instead of applying the
      inappropriate Norwegian rules.

   Language tags are related when they contain a similar sequence of
   subtags.  For example, if a language tag B contains language tag A as
   a prefix, then B is typically "narrower" or "more specific" than A.
   Thus, "zh-Hant-TW" is more specific than "zh-Hant".

   This relationship is not guaranteed in all cases: specifically,
   languages that begin with the same sequence of subtags are NOT
   guaranteed to be mutually intelligible, although they might be.  For
   example, the tag "az" shares a prefix with both "az-Latn"
   (Azerbaijani written using the Latin script) and "az-Cyrl"
   (Azerbaijani written using the Cyrillic script).  A person fluent in
   one script might not be able to read the other, even though the text



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 47]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   might be identical.  Content tagged as "az" most probably is written
   in just one script and thus might not be intelligible to a reader
   familiar with the other script.

4.3.  Length Considerations

   There is no defined upper limit on the size of language tags.  While
   historically most language tags have consisted of language and region
   subtags with a combined total length of up to six characters, larger
   tags have always been both possible and actually appeared in use.

   Neither the language tag syntax nor other requirements in this
   document impose a fixed upper limit on the number of subtags in a
   language tag (and thus an upper bound on the size of a tag).  The
   language tag syntax suggests that, depending on the specific
   language, more subtags (and thus a longer tag) are sometimes
   necessary to completely identify the language for certain
   applications; thus, it is possible to envision long or complex subtag
   sequences.

4.3.1.  Working with Limited Buffer Sizes

   Some applications and protocols are forced to allocate fixed buffer
   sizes or otherwise limit the length of a language tag.  A conformant
   implementation or specification MAY refuse to support the storage of
   language tags that exceed a specified length.  Any such limitation
   SHOULD be clearly documented, and such documentation SHOULD include
   what happens to longer tags (for example, whether an error value is
   generated or the language tag is truncated).  A protocol that allows
   tags to be truncated at an arbitrary limit, without giving any
   indication of what that limit is, has the potential for causing harm
   by changing the meaning of tags in substantial ways.

   In practice, most language tags do not require more than a few
   subtags and will not approach reasonably sized buffer limitations;
   see Section 4.1.

   Some specifications or protocols have limits on tag length but do not
   have a fixed length limitation.  For example, [RFC2231] has no
   explicit length limitation: the length available for the language tag
   is constrained by the length of other header components (such as the
   charset's name) coupled with the 76-character limit in [RFC2047].
   Thus, the "limit" might be 50 or more characters, but it could
   potentially be quite small.

   The considerations for assigning a buffer limit are:





Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 48]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


      Implementations SHOULD NOT truncate language tags unless the
      meaning of the tag is purposefully being changed, or unless the
      tag does not fit into a limited buffer size specified by a
      protocol for storage or transmission.

      Implementations SHOULD warn the user when a tag is truncated since
      truncation changes the semantic meaning of the tag.

      Implementations of protocols or specifications that are space
      constrained but do not have a fixed limit SHOULD use the longest
      possible tag in preference to truncation.

      Protocols or specifications that specify limited buffer sizes for
      language tags MUST allow for language tags of up to 33 characters.

      Protocols or specifications that specify limited buffer sizes for
      language tags SHOULD allow for language tags of at least 30
      characters.  Note that RFC 4646 [RFC4646] recommended a field size
      of 42 character because it included the permanently reserved (and
      unused) 'extlang' production.  The current size recommendation
      does not include the use of the 'extlang' field.

   The following illustration shows how the 30-character recommendation
   was derived.  The combination of language and extended language
   subtags was chosen for future compatibility.  At up to 15 characters,
   this combination is longer than the longest possible primary language
   subtag (8 characters):

   language      =  3 (ISO 639-2; ISO 639-1 requires 2)
   script        =  5 (if not suppressed: see Section 4.1)
   region        =  4 (UN M.49; ISO 3166 requires 3)
   variant1      =  9 (needs 'language' as a prefix)
   variant2      =  9 (needs 'language-variant1' as a prefix)

   total         = 30 characters

              Figure 6: Derivation of the Limit on Tag Length

4.3.2.  Truncation of Language Tags

   Truncation of a language tag alters the meaning of the tag, and thus
   SHOULD be avoided.  However, truncation of language tags is sometimes
   necessary due to limited buffer sizes.  Such truncation MUST NOT
   permit a subtag to be chopped off in the middle or the formation of
   invalid tags (for example, one ending with the "-" character).

   This means that applications or protocols that truncate tags MUST do
   so by progressively removing subtags along with their preceding "-"



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 49]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   from the right side of the language tag until the tag is short enough
   for the given buffer.  If the resulting tag ends with a single-
   character subtag, that subtag and its preceding "-" MUST also be
   removed.  For example:

   Tag to truncate: zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1
   1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile
   2. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1
   3. zh-Latn-CN-variant1
   4. zh-Latn-CN
   5. zh-Latn
   6. zh

                    Figure 7: Example of Tag Truncation

4.4.  Canonicalization of Language Tags

   Since a particular language tag is sometimes used by many processes,
   language tags SHOULD always be created or generated in a canonical
   form.

   A language tag is in canonical form when:

   1.  The tag is well-formed according the rules in Section 2.1 and
       Section 2.2.

   2.  Subtags of type 'Region' that have a Preferred-Value mapping in
       the IANA registry (see Section 3.1) SHOULD be replaced with their
       mapped value.  Note: In rare cases, the mapped value will also
       have a Preferred-Value.

   3.  Redundant or grandfathered tags that have a Preferred-Value
       mapping in the IANA registry (see Section 3.1) MUST be replaced
       with their mapped value.  These items either are deprecated
       mappings created before the adoption of this document (such as
       the mapping of "no-nyn" to "nn" or "i-klingon" to "tlh") or are
       the result of later registrations or additions to this document
       (for example, "zh-hakka" was deprecated in favor of the ISO 639-3
       code 'hak' when this document was adopted).

   4.  Other subtags that have a Preferred-Value mapping in the IANA
       registry (see Section 3.1) MUST be replaced with their mapped
       value.  These items consist entirely of clerical corrections to
       ISO 639-1 in which the deprecated subtags have been maintained
       for compatibility purposes.

   5.  If more than one extension subtag sequence exists, the extension
       sequences are ordered into case-insensitive ASCII order by



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 50]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


       singleton subtag.

   Example: The language tag "en-A-aaa-B-ccc-bbb-x-xyz" is in canonical
   form, while "en-B-ccc-bbb-A-aaa-X-xyz" is well-formed but not in
   canonical form.

   Example: The language tag "en-BU" (English as used in Burma) is not
   canonical because the 'BU' subtag has a canonical mapping to 'MM'
   (Myanmar), although the tag "en-BU" maintains its validity.

   Canonicalization of language tags does not imply anything about the
   use of upper or lowercase letters when processing or comparing
   subtags (and as described in Section 2.1).  All comparisons MUST be
   performed in a case-insensitive manner.

   When performing canonicalization of language tags, processors MAY
   regularize the case of the subtags (that is, this process is
   OPTIONAL), following the case used in the registry.  Note that this
   corresponds to the following casing rules: uppercase all non-initial
   two-letter subtags; titlecase all non-initial four-letter subtags;
   lowercase everything else.

   Note: Case folding of ASCII letters in certain locales, unless
   carefully handled, sometimes produces non-ASCII character values.
   The Unicode Character Database file "SpecialCasing.txt" defines the
   specific cases that are known to cause problems with this.  In
   particular, the letter 'i' (U+0069) in Turkish and Azerbaijani is
   uppercased to U+0130 (LATIN CAPITAL LETTER I WITH DOT ABOVE).
   Implementers SHOULD specify a locale-neutral casing operation to
   ensure that case folding of subtags does not produce this value,
   which is illegal in language tags.  For example, if one were to
   uppercase the region subtag 'in' using Turkish locale rules, the
   sequence U+0130 U+004E would result instead of the expected 'IN'.

   Note: if the field 'Deprecated' appears in a registry record without
   an accompanying 'Preferred-Value' field, then that tag or subtag is
   deprecated without a replacement.  Validating processors SHOULD NOT
   generate tags that include these values, although the values are
   canonical when they appear in a language tag.

   An extension MUST define any relationships that exist between the
   various subtags in the extension and thus MAY define an alternate
   canonicalization scheme for the extension's subtags.  Extensions MAY
   define how the order of the extension's subtags are interpreted.  For
   example, an extension could define that its subtags are in canonical
   order when the subtags are placed into ASCII order: that is, "en-a-
   aaa-bbb-ccc" instead of "en-a-ccc-bbb-aaa".  Another extension might
   define that the order of the subtags influences their semantic



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 51]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   meaning (so that "en-b-ccc-bbb-aaa" has a different value from "en-b-
   aaa-bbb-ccc").  However, extension specifications SHOULD be designed
   so that they are tolerant of the typical processes described in
   Section 3.7.

4.5.  Considerations for Private Use Subtags

   Private use subtags, like all other subtags, MUST conform to the
   format and content constraints in the ABNF.  Private use subtags have
   no meaning outside the private agreement between the parties that
   intend to use or exchange language tags that employ them.  The same
   subtags MAY be used with a different meaning under a separate private
   agreement.  They SHOULD NOT be used where alternatives exist and
   SHOULD NOT be used in content or protocols intended for general use.

   Private use subtags are simply useless for information exchange
   without prior arrangement.  The value and semantic meaning of private
   use tags and of the subtags used within such a language tag are not
   defined by this document.

   Subtags defined in the IANA registry as having a specific private use
   meaning convey more information that a purely private use tag
   prefixed by the singleton subtag 'x'.  For applications, this
   additional information MAY be useful.

   For example, the region subtags 'AA', 'ZZ', and in the ranges
   'QM'-'QZ' and 'XA'-'XZ' (derived from ISO 3166 private use codes) MAY
   be used to form a language tag.  A tag such as "zh-Hans-XQ" conveys a
   great deal of public, interchangeable information about the language
   material (that it is Chinese in the simplified Chinese script and is
   suitable for some geographic region 'XQ').  While the precise
   geographic region is not known outside of private agreement, the tag
   conveys far more information than an opaque tag such as "x-someLang",
   which contains no information about the language subtag or script
   subtag outside of the private agreement.

   However, in some cases content tagged with private use subtags MAY
   interact with other systems in a different and possibly unsuitable
   manner compared to tags that use opaque, privately defined subtags,
   so the choice of the best approach sometimes depends on the
   particular domain in question.










Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 52]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


5.  IANA Considerations

   This section deals with the processes and requirements necessary for
   IANA to undertake to maintain the subtag and extension registries as
   defined by this document and in accordance with the requirements of
   [RFC2434].

   The impact on the IANA maintainers of the two registries defined by
   this document will be a small increase in the frequency of new
   entries or updates.

5.1.  Language Subtag Registry

   Upon adoption of this document, IANA will update the registry using
   instructions and content provided in a companion document:
   [registry-update].  The criteria and process for selecting the
   updated set of records are described in that document.  The updated
   set of records represents no impact on IANA, since the work to create
   it will be performed externally.

   Future work on the Language Subtag Registry has been limited to
   inserting or replacing whole records preformatted for IANA by the
   Language Subtag Reviewer as described in Section 3.3 of this document
   and archiving and making publically available the forwarded
   registration form.

   Each registration form sent to IANA contains a single record for
   incorporation into the registry.  The form MUST be sent to
   iana@iana.org by the Language Subtag Reviewer.  It will have a
   subject line indicating whether the enclosed form represents an
   insertion of a new record (indicated by the word "INSERT" in the
   subject line) or a replacement of an existing record (indicated by
   the word "MODIFY" in the subject line).  Records MUST NOT be deleted
   from the registry.

   IANA MUST extract the record from the form and place the inserted or
   modified record into the appropriate section of the language subtag
   registry, grouping the records by their 'Type' field.  Inserted
   records MAY be placed anywhere in the appropriate section; there is
   no guarantee of the order of the records beyond grouping them
   together by 'Type'.  Modified records MUST overwrite the record they
   replace.

   IANA MUST update the File-Date record to contain the most recent
   modification date when performing any inserting or modification:
   included in any request to insert or modify records will be a new
   File-Date record indicating the acceptance date of the record.  This
   record MUST be placed first in the registry, replacing the existing



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 53]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   File-Date record.  In the event that the File-Date record present in
   the registry has a later date than the record being inserted or
   modified, then the latest (most recent) record MUST be preserved.
   IANA SHOULD process multiple registration requests in order according
   to the File-Date in the form, since one registration could otherwise
   cause a more recent change to be overwritten.

   The updated registry file MUST use the UTF-8 character encoding and
   IANA MUST check the registry file for proper encoding.  Non-ASCII
   characters can be sent to IANA by attaching the registration form to
   the email message or by using various encodings in the mail message
   body (UTF-8 is recommended).  IANA will verify any unclear or
   corrupted characters with the Language Subtag Reviewer prior to
   posting the updated registry.

   The registration form sent to IANA MUST be archived and made publicly
   available from
   "http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-subtags-templates/".  Note that
   multiple registrations can pertain to the same record in the
   registry.

   Developers who are dependent upon the language subtag registry
   sometimes would like to be informed of changes in the registry so
   that they can update their implementations.  When any change is made
   to the language subtag registry, IANA MUST send an announcement
   message to ietf-languages-announcements@iana.org (a self-subscribing
   list that only IANA can post to).

5.2.  Extensions Registry

   The Language Tag Extensions Registry can contain at most 35 records
   and thus changes to this registry are expected to be very infrequent.

   Future work by IANA on the Language Tag Extensions Registry is
   limited to two cases.  First, the IESG MAY request that new records
   be inserted into this registry from time to time.  These requests
   MUST include the record to insert in the exact format described in
   Section 3.7.  In addition, there MAY be occasional requests from the
   maintaining authority for a specific extension to update the contact
   information or URLs in the record.  These requests MUST include the
   complete, updated record.  IANA is not responsible for validating the
   information provided, only that it is properly formatted.  It should
   reasonably be seen to come from the maintaining authority named in
   the record present in the registry.







Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 54]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


6.  Security Considerations

   Language tags used in content negotiation, like any other information
   exchanged on the Internet, might be a source of concern because they
   might be used to infer the nationality of the sender, and thus
   identify potential targets for surveillance.

   This is a special case of the general problem that anything sent is
   visible to the receiving party and possibly to third parties as well.
   It is useful to be aware that such concerns can exist in some cases.

   The evaluation of the exact magnitude of the threat, and any possible
   countermeasures, is left to each application protocol (see BCP 72
   [RFC3552] for best current practice guidance on security threats and
   defenses).

   The language tag associated with a particular information item is of
   no consequence whatsoever in determining whether that content might
   contain possible homographs.  The fact that a text is tagged as being
   in one language or using a particular script subtag provides no
   assurance whatsoever that it does not contain characters from scripts
   other than the one(s) associated with or specified by that language
   tag.

   Since there is no limit to the number of variant, private use, and
   extension subtags, and consequently no limit on the possible length
   of a tag, implementations need to guard against buffer overflow
   attacks.  See Section 4.3 for details on language tag truncation,
   which can occur as a consequence of defenses against buffer overflow.

   Although the specification of valid subtags for an extension (see
   Section 3.7) MUST be available over the Internet, implementations
   SHOULD NOT mechanically depend on it being always accessible, to
   prevent denial-of-service attacks.

















Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 55]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


7.  Character Set Considerations

   The syntax in this document requires that language tags use only the
   characters A-Z, a-z, 0-9, and HYPHEN-MINUS, which are present in most
   character sets, so the composition of language tags should not have
   any character set issues.

   Rendering of characters based on the content of a language tag is not
   addressed in this memo.  Historically, some languages have relied on
   the use of specific character sets or other information in order to
   infer how a specific character should be rendered (notably this
   applies to language- and culture-specific variations of Han
   ideographs as used in Japanese, Chinese, and Korean).  When language
   tags are applied to spans of text, rendering engines sometimes use
   that information in deciding which font to use in the absence of
   other information, particularly where languages with distinct writing
   traditions use the same characters.


































Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 56]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


8.  Changes from RFC 4646

   The main goal for this revision of this document was to incorporate
   ISO 639-3 and its attendent set of language codes into the IANA
   Language Subtag Registry, permitting the identification of many more
   languages and dialects than previously supported.

   The specific changes in this document to meet these goals are:

   o  Defines the incorporation of ISO 639-3 codes as language.  It also
      permanently reserves and disallows the use of extlang subtags.
      The changes necessary to achieve this were:

      *  something

   o  Changed the ABNF related to grandfathered tags.  The irregular
      tags are now listed.  Well-formed grandfathered tags are now
      described by the 'langtag' production and the 'grandfathered'
      production was removed as a result.  Also: added description of
      both types of grandfathered tags to Section 2.2.8.

   o  Added the paragraph on "collections" to Section 4.1.

   o  Changed the capitalization rules for 'Tag' fields in Section 3.1.

   o  Split section 3.1 up into subsections.

   o  Modified section 3.5 to allow Suppress-Script fields to be added,
      modified, or removed via the registration process.  This was an
      erratum from RFC 4646.

   o  Modified examples that used region code 'CS' (formerly Serbia and
      Montenegro) to use 'RS' (Serbia) instead.

   o  Modified the rules for creating and maintaining record
      'Description' fields to prevent duplicates, including inverted
      duplicates.

   o  Removed the lengthy description of why RFC 4646 was created from
      this section, which also caused the removal of the reference to
      XML Schema.

   o  Modified the text in section 2.1 to place more emphasis on the
      fact that language tags are not case sensitive.

   o  Replaced the example "fr-Latn-CA" in Section 2.1 with "sr-Latn-RS"
      and "az-Arab-IR" because "fr-Latn-CA" doesn't respect the
      Suppress-Script on 'Latn' with 'fr'.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 57]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   o  Changed the requirements for well-formedness to make singleton
      repetition checking optional (it is required for validity
      checking) in Section 2.2.9.

   o  Changed the text in Section 2.2.9 refering to grandfathered
      checking to note that the list is now included in the ABNF.

   o  Modified and added text to Section 3.2.  The job description was
      placed first.  A note was added making clear that the Language
      Subtag Reviewer may delegate various non-critical duties,
      including list moderation.  Finally, additional text was added to
      make the appointment process clear and to clarify that decisions
      and performance of the reviewer are appealable.

   o  Added text to Section 3.5 clarifying that the ietf-languages list
      is operated by whomever the IESG appoints.

   o  Added text to Section 3.1.4 clarifying that the first Description
      in a 'language' record matches the corresponding Reference Name
      for the language in ISO 639-3.

   o  Modified Section 2.2.9 to define classes of conformance related to
      specific tags (formerly 'well-formed' and 'valid' referred to
      implementations).

   o  Added text to the end of Section 3.1.2 noting that future versions
      of this document might add new field types and recommending that
      implementations ignore any unrecognized fields.

   o  Added text about what the lack of a Suppress-Script field means in
      a record to Section 3.1.8.

   o  Added text allowing the correction of misspellings and typographic
      errors to Section 3.1.4.

   o  Added text to Section 3.1.7 disallowing Prefix field conflicts
      (such as circular prefix references).

   o  Modified text in Section 3.5 to require the subtag reviewer to
      announce his/her decision (or extension) following the two-week
      period.  Also clarified that any decision or failure to decide can
      be appealed.

   o  Modified text in Section 4.1 to include the (heretofore anecdotal)
      guiding principle of tag choice, and clarifying the non-use of
      script subtags in non-written applications.  Also updated examples
      in this section to use Chamic languages as an example of language
      collections.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 58]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   o  Prohibited multiple use of the same variant in a tag (i.e. "de-
      1901-1901").  Previously this was only a recommendation
      ("SHOULD").

   o  Removed inappropriate [RFC2119] language from the illustration in
      Section 4.3.1.

   o  Replaced the example of "zh-gouyu" with "zh-hakka"->"zh-hak" in
      Section 4.4, noting that it was this document that caused the
      change.

   o  Replaced the section in Section 4.1 dealing with "mul"/"und" to
      include the subtags 'zxx' and 'mis', as well as the tag
      "i-default".  A normative reference to RFC 2277 was added, along
      with an informative reference to MARC21.

   o  Added text to Section 3.5 clarifying that any modifications of a
      registration request must be sent to the ietf-languages list
      before submission to IANA.

   o  Changed the ABNF for the record-jar format from using the LWSP
      production to use a folding whitespace production similar to obs-
      FWS in [RFC4234].  This effectively prevents unintentional blank
      lines inside a field.

   o  Clarified and revised text in Section 3.3, Section 3.5, and
      Section 5.1 to clarify that the Language Subtag Reviewer sends the
      complete registration forms to IANA, that IANA extracts the record
      from the form, and that the forms must also be archived separately
      from the registry.

   o  Added text to Section 5 requiring IANA to send an announcement to
      an ietf-languages-announce list whenever the registry is updated.

   o  Modification of the registry to use UTF-8 as its character
      encoding.  This also entails additional instructions to IANA and
      the Language Subtag Reviewer in the registration process.

   o  Modified the rules in Section 2.2.4 so that "exceptionally
      reserved" ISO 3166-1 codes other than 'UK' were included into the
      registry.  In particular, this allows the code 'EU' (European
      Union) to be used to form language tags or (more commonly) for
      applications that use the registry for region codes to reference
      this subtag.

   [[Ed.Note: Open issues in this version:





Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 59]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


      Inclusion of additional information related to Suppress-Script in
      the registry (e.g. that it wasn't assigned on purpose)

   ]]















































Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 60]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


9.  References

9.1.  Normative References

   [ISO15924]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO
              15924:2004. Information and documentation -- Codes for the
              representation of names of scripts", January 2004.

   [ISO3166-1]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 3166-
              1:2006. Codes for the representation of names of countries
              and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes",
              November 2006.

   [ISO639-1]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
              1:2002. Codes for the representation of names of languages
              -- Part 1: Alpha-2 code", 2002.

   [ISO639-2]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
              2:1998. Codes for the representation of names of languages
              -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code, first edition", 1998.

   [ISO639-3]
              International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
              3:2007. Codes for the representation of names of languages
              -- Part 3: Alpha-3 code for comprehensive coverage of
              languages", 2007.

   [ISO646]   International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/IEC
              646:1991, Information technology -- ISO 7-bit coded
              character set for information interchange.", 1991.

   [RFC2026]  Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision
              3", BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.

   [RFC2028]  Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in
              the IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028,
              October 1996.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.

   [RFC2277]  Alvestrand, H., "IETF Policy on Character Sets and
              Languages", BCP 18, RFC 2277, January 1998.




Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 61]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
              October 1998.

   [RFC2860]  Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
              Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the
              Internet Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.

   [RFC3339]  Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
              Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.

   [RFC4234]  Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
              Specifications: ABNF", RFC 4234, October 2005.

   [RFC4645]  Ewell, D., Ed., "Initial Language Subtag Registry",
              September 2006, <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4645.txt>.

   [RFC4647]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Matching of Language
              Tags", September 2006,
              <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4647.txt>.

   [UN_M.49]  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.

9.2.  Informative References

   [RFC1766]  Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
              Languages", RFC 1766, March 1995.

   [RFC2047]  Moore, K., "MIME (Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions)
              Part Three: Message Header Extensions for Non-ASCII Text",
              RFC 2047, November 1996.

   [RFC2231]  Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded
              Word Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and
              Continuations", RFC 2231, November 1997.

   [RFC2781]  Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO
              10646", RFC 2781, February 2000.

   [RFC3066]  Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of
              Languages", BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552,
              July 2003.



Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 62]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


   [RFC3629]  Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO
              10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003.

   [RFC4646]  Phillips, A., Ed. and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for the
              Identification of Languages", September 2006,
              <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4646.txt>.

   [Unicode]  Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode
              Standard, Version 5.0, (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003.
              ISBN 0-321-49081-0)", January 2007.

   [iso639.prin]
              ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee, "ISO 639 Joint Advisory
              Committee:  Working principles for ISO 639 maintenance",
              March 2000,
              <http://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/
              iso639jac_n3r.html>.

   [record-jar]
              Raymond, E., "The Art of Unix Programming", 2003,
              <urn:isbn:0-13-142901-9>.

   [registry-update]
              Ewell, D., Ed., "Update to the Language Subtag Registry",
              September 2006, <http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
              draft-ietf-ltru-initial-registry-00.txt>.

























Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 63]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


Appendix A.  Acknowledgements

   Any list of contributors is bound to be incomplete; please regard the
   following as only a selection from the group of people who have
   contributed to make this document what it is today.

   The contributors to RFC 4646, RFC 4647, RFC 3066, and RFC 1766, the
   precursors of this document, made enormous contributions directly or
   indirectly to this document and are generally responsible for the
   success of language tags.

   The following people contributed to this document:

   Stephane Bortzmeyer, Karen Broome, Peter Constable, John Cowan,
   Martin Duerst, Frank Ellerman, Doug Ewell, Deborah Garside, Marion
   Gunn, Kent Karlsson, Chris Newman, Randy Presuhn, Stephen Silver, and
   many, many others.

   Very special thanks must go to Harald Tveit Alvestrand, who
   originated RFCs 1766 and 3066, and without whom this document would
   not have been possible.

   Special thanks go to Michael Everson, who served as the Language Tag
   Reviewer for almost the entire RFC 1766/RFC 3066 period, as well as
   the Language Subtag Reviewer since the adoption of RFC 4646.

   Special thanks also to Doug Ewell, for his production of the first
   complete subtag registry, his work to support and maintain new
   registrations, and his careful editorship of both RFC 4645 and
   [registry-update].





















Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 64]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


Appendix B.  Examples of Language Tags (Informative)

   Simple language subtag:

      de (German)

      fr (French)

      ja (Japanese)

      i-enochian (example of a grandfathered tag)

   Language subtag plus Script subtag:

      zh-Hant (Chinese written using the Traditional Chinese script)

      zh-Hans (Chinese written using the Simplified Chinese script)

      sr-Cyrl (Serbian written using the Cyrillic script)

      sr-Latn (Serbian written using the Latin script)

   Language-Script-Region:

      zh-Hans-CN (Chinese written using the Simplified script as used in
      mainland China)

      sr-Latn-RS (Serbian written using the Latin script as used in
      Serbia)

   Language-Variant:

      sl-rozaj (Resian dialect of Slovenian)

      sl-nedis (Nadiza dialect of Slovenian)

   Language-Region-Variant:

      de-CH-1901 (German as used in Switzerland using the 1901 variant
      [orthography])

      sl-IT-nedis (Slovenian as used in Italy, Nadiza dialect)

   Language-Script-Region-Variant:







Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 65]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


      hy-Latn-IT-arevela (Eastern Armenian written in Latin script, as
      used in Italy)

   Language-Region:

      de-DE (German for Germany)

      en-US (English as used in the United States)

      es-419 (Spanish appropriate for the Latin America and Caribbean
      region using the UN region code)

   Private use subtags:

      de-CH-x-phonebk

      az-Arab-x-AZE-derbend

   Private use registry values:

      x-whatever (private use using the singleton 'x')

      qaa-Qaaa-QM-x-southern (all private tags)

      de-Qaaa (German, with a private script)

      sr-Latn-QM (Serbian, Latin-script, private region)

      sr-Qaaa-RS (Serbian, private script, for Serbia)

   Tags that use extensions (examples ONLY: extensions MUST be defined
   by revision or update to this document or by RFC):

      en-US-u-islamCal

      zh-CN-a-myExt-x-private

      en-a-myExt-b-another

   Some Invalid Tags:

      de-419-DE (two region tags)

      a-DE (use of a single-character subtag in primary position; note
      that there are a few grandfathered tags that start with "i-" that
      are valid)





Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 66]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


      ar-a-aaa-b-bbb-a-ccc (two extensions with same single-letter
      prefix)

















































Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 67]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


Appendix C.  Examples of Registration Forms
   LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
   1. Name of requester: Han Steenwijk
   2. E-mail address of requester: han.steenwijk @ unipd.it
   3. Record Requested:

   Type:        variant
   Subtag:      biske
   Description: The San Giorgio dialect of Resian
   Description: The Bila dialect of Resian
   Prefix:      sl-rozaj
   Comments:    The dialect of San Giorgio/Bila is one of the
      four major local dialects of Resian

   4. Intended meaning of the subtag: The local variety of Resian as
   spoken in San Giorgio/Bila

   5. Reference to published description of the language (book or
   article):
    -- Jan I.N. Baudouin de Courtenay - Opyt fonetiki rez'janskich
   govorov, Varsava - Peterburg: Vende - Kozancikov, 1875.






























Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 68]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
1. Name of requester: Jaska Zedlik
2. E-mail address of requester: jz53 @ zedlik.com
3. Record Requested:

Type:   variant
Subtag: tarask
Description: Belarusian in Taraskievica orthography
Prefix: be
Comments: The subtag represents Branislau Taraskievic's Belarusian
  orthography as published in "Bielaruski klasycny pravapis" by Juras
  Buslakou, Vincuk Viacorka, Zmicier Sanko, and Zmicier Sauka
  (Vilnia-Miensk 2005).

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:

The subtag is intended to represent the Belarusian orthography as
published in "Bielaruski klasycny pravapis" by Juras Buslakou, Vincuk
Viacorka, Zmicier Sanko, and Zmicier Sauka (Vilnia-Miensk 2005).

5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):

Taraskievic, Branislau. Bielaruskaja gramatyka dla skol. Vilnia: Vyd.
"Bielaruskaha kamitetu", 1929, 5th edition.

Buslakou, Juras; Viacorka, Vincuk; Sanko, Zmicier; Sauka, Zmicier.
Bielaruski klasycny pravapis. Vilnia-Miensk, 2005.

6. Any other relevant information:

Belarusian in Taraskievica orthography became widely used, especially in
Belarusian-speaking Internet segment, but besides this some books and
newspapers are also printed using this orthography of Belarusian.


















Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 69]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


Authors' Addresses

   Addison Phillips (editor)
   Yahoo! Inc.

   Email: addison@inter-locale.com
   URI:   http://www.inter-locale.com


   Mark Davis (editor)
   Google

   Email: mark.davis@macchiato.com or mark.davis@google.com






































Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 70]

Internet-Draft              langtags-registry              December 2007


Full Copyright Statement

   Copyright (C) The IETF Trust (2007).

   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, THE IETF TRUST 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.


Acknowledgment

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





Phillips & Davis          Expires June 6, 2008                 [Page 71]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/