One document matched: draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01.txt
Differences from draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00.txt
Network Working Group A. Phillips, Ed.
Internet-Draft Quest Software
Expires: October 28, 2005 M. Davis, Ed.
IBM
April 26, 2005
Tags for Identifying Languages
draft-ietf-ltru-registry-01
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 October 28, 2005.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005).
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. This
document obsoletes RFC 3066 (which replaced RFC 1766).
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. The Language Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Syntax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1.1 Length Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation . . . . . . . . 7
2.2.1 Primary Language Subtag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2.2 Extended Language Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3 Script Subtag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.4 Region Subtag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.2.5 Variant Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2.6 Extension Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.7 Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.2.8 Pre-Existing RFC 3066 Registrations . . . . . . . . . 15
2.2.9 Classes of Conformance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3. Registry Format and Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.1 Format of the IANA Language Subtag Registry . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Maintenance of the Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.3 Stability of IANA Registry Entries . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.4 Registration Procedure for Subtags . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5 Possibilities for Registration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.6 Extensions and Extensions Namespace . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.7 Conversion of the RFC 3066 Language Tag Registry . . . . . 33
4. Formation and Processing of Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.1 Choice of Language Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.2 Meaning of the Language Tag . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.3 Canonicalization of Language Tags . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.4 Considerations for Private Use Subtags . . . . . . . . . . 40
5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
7. Character Set Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
8. Changes from RFC 3066 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
9.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
9.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B. Examples of Language Tags (Informative) . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C. Example Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 61
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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.
Information about a user's language preferences commonly needs to be
identified so that appropriate processing can be applied. For
example, the user's language preferences in a browser can be used to
select web pages appropriately. A choice of language preference 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 may be useful or even required by some
types of information 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 a language identifier. These identifiers
can also be used to specify user preferences when selecting
information content, or for labeling additional attributes of content
and associated resources.
These identifiers can also be used to indicate additional attributes
of content that are closely related to the language. In particular,
it is often necessary to indicate specific information about the
dialect, writing system, or orthography used in a document or
resource, as these attributes may be important for the user to obtain
information in a form that they can understand, or important in
selecting appropriate processing resources for the given content.
This document specifies an identifier mechanism and a registration
function for values to be used with that identifier mechanism. It
also defines a mechanism for private use values and future extension.
This document replaces RFC 3066, which replaced RFC 1766. For a list
of changes in this document, see Section 8.
The keywords "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC 2119] [10].
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
2. The Language Tag
2.1 Syntax
The language tag is composed of one or more parts: A primary language
subtag and a (possibly empty) series of subsequent subtags. Subtags
are distinguished by their length, position in the subtag sequence,
and content, so that each type of subtag can be recognized solely by
these features. This makes it possible to construct a parser that
can extract and assign some semantic information to the subtags, even
if specific subtag values are not recognized. Thus a parser need not
have an up-to-date copy of the registered subtag values to perform
most searching and matching operations.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
The syntax of this tag in ABNF [7] is:
Language-Tag = (lang
*("-" extlang)
["-" script]
["-" region]
*("-" variant)
*("-" extension)
["-" privateuse])
/ privateuse ; private-use tag
/ grandfathered ; grandfathered registrations
lang = 2*3ALPHA ; shortest ISO 639 code
/ registered-lang
extlang = 3ALPHA ; reserved for future use
script = 4ALPHA ; ISO 15924 code
region = 2ALPHA ; ISO 3166 code
/ 3DIGIT ; UN country number
variant = 5*8alphanum ; registered variants
/ ( DIGIT 3alphanum )
extension = singleton 1*("-" (2*8alphanum))
privateuse = ("x"/"X") 1*("-" (1*8alphanum))
singleton = %x41-57 / %x59-5A / %x61-77 / %x79-7A / DIGIT
; "a"-"w" / "y"-"z" / "A"-"W" / "Y"-"Z" / "0"-"9"
; Single letters: x/X is reserved for private use
registered-lang = 4*8ALPHA ; registered language subtag
grandfathered = 1*3ALPHA 1*2("-" (2*8alphanum))
; grandfathered registration
; Note: i is the only singleton
; that starts a grandfathered tag
alphanum = (ALPHA / DIGIT) ; letters and numbers
Figure 1: Language Tag ABNF
The character "-" is HYPHEN-MINUS (ABNF: %x2D). All subtags have a
maximum length of eight characters. Note that there is a subtlety in
the ABNF for 'variant': variants starting with a digit may be only
four characters long, while those starting with a letter must be at
least five characters long.
Whitespace is not permitted in a language tag. For examples of
language tags, see Appendix B.
Note that although [7] refers to octets, the language tags described
in this document are sequences of characters from the US-ASCII
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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
the UTF-16LE [12] encoding of Unicode [20].
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 should not be taken
to carry meaning.
For example:
o [ISO 639] [1] recommends that language codes be written in lower
case ('mn' Mongolian).
o [ISO 3166] [4] recommends that country codes be capitalized ('MN'
Mongolia).
o [ISO 15924] [3] recommends that script codes use lower case 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.
2.1.1 Length Considerations
Although neither the ABNF nor other guidelines in this document
provide a fixed upper limit on the number of subtags in a Language
Tag (and thus the upper bound on the size of a tag) and it is
possible to envision quite long and complex subtag sequences, in
practice these are rare because additional granularity in tags seldom
adds useful distinguishing information and because longer, more
granular tags interefere with the meaning, understanding, and
processing of language tags.
In particular, variant subtags SHOULD be used only with their
recommended prefix. In practice, this limits most tags to a sequence
of four subtags, and thus a maximum length of 26 characters
(excluding any extensions or private use sequences). This is because
subtags are limited to a length of eight characters and the extlang,
script, and region subtags are limited to even fewer characters. See
Section 4.1 for more information on selecting the most appropriate
Language Tag.
A conformant implementation MAY refuse to support the storage of
language tags which exceed a specified length. For an example, see
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
[RFC 2231] [22]. Any such limitation MUST be clearly documented, and
such documentation SHOULD include the disposition of any longer tags
(for example, whether an error value is generated or the language tag
is truncated). If truncation is permitted it SHOULD NOT permit a
subtag to be divided.
2.2 Language Subtag Sources and Interpretation
The namespace of language tags and their subtags is administered by
the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) [13] according to the
rules in Section 5 of this document. The registry maintained by IANA
is the source for valid subtags: other standards referenced in this
section provide the source material for that registry.
Terminology in this section:
o Tag or tags refers to a complete language tag, such as
"fr-Latn-CA". 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 'Latn' in "fr-Latn-CA". Examples of subtags in
this document are enclosed in single quotes ('Latn').
o Code or codes refers to values defined in external standards (and
which are used as subtags in this document). For example, 'Latn'
is an [ISO 15924] [3] script code which was used to define the
'Latn' script subtag for use in a language tag. Examples of codes
in this document are enclosed in single quotes ('en', 'Latn').
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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
at the end of the sequence of subtags and MUST NOT be interspersed
with subtags defined elsewhere in this document.
Single letter and digit subtags are reserved for current or future
use. These include the following current uses:
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 3.6.
The single letter subtag 'i' is used by some grandfathered tags, such
as "i-enochian", 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 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" [ISO 639-1] [1], or
using assignments subsequently made by the ISO 639 Part 1
maintenance agency or governing standardization bodies.
2. All three character language subtags were defined in the IANA
registry according to the assignments found in ISO 639 Part 2,
"ISO 639-2:1998 - Codes for the representation of names of
languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3 code - edition 1" [ISO 639-2] [2],
or assignments subsequently made by the ISO 639 Part 2
maintenance agency 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 4.4
for more information on private use subtags.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
4. All four character language subtags are reserved for possible
future standardization.
5. All language subtags of 5 to 8 characters in length in the IANA
registry were defined via the registration process in Section 3.4
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 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 4.4.
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 an ISO 639-2 three character code, 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 not expected that future
assignments of this nature will 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 [16]:
"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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
consistency in usage over time, since users are directed in Internet
applications to employ the alpha-3 code when an alpha-2 code for that
language is not available."
In order to avoid instability of 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 ISO 639-2, the two character
code will not be added as a subtag in the registry. See Section 3.3.
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.
For example, 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
The following rules apply to the extended language subtags:
1. Three letter subtags immediately following the primary subtag are
reserved for future standardization, anticipating work that is
currently under way on ISO 639.
2. Extended language subtags MUST follow the primary subtag and
precede any other subtags.
3. There MAY be any additional number of extended language subtags.
4. Extended language subtags will not be registered except by
revision of this document.
5. Extended language subtags MUST NOT be used to form language tags
except by revision of this document.
Example: In a future revision or update of this document, the tag
"zh-gan" (registered under RFC 3066) might become a valid non-
grandfathered (that is, redundant) tag in which the subtag 'gan'
might represent the Chinese dialect 'Gan'.
2.2.3 Script Subtag
The following rules apply to the script subtags:
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
1. All four character subtags were defined according to ISO 15924
[3]--"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 4.4 for more
information on private-use subtags.
4. Script subtags cannot be registered using the process in
Section 3.4 of this document. Variant subtags may be considered
for registration for that purpose.
Example: "de-Latn" represents German written using the Latin script.
2.2.4 Region Subtag
The following rules apply to the region subtags:
1. The region subtag defines language variations used in a specific
region, geographic, or political area. 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 ISO 3166 [4]--"Codes for the representation of names of
countries and their subdivisions - Part 1: Country
codes"--alpha-2 country codes or assignments subsequently made by
the ISO 3166 maintenance agency or governing standardization
bodies.
3. All three character codes consisting of digit (numeric)
characters were defined in the IANA registry according to the
assignments found in UN Standard Country or Area Codes for
Statistical Use [5] 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:
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
A. UN numeric codes assigned to 'macro-geographical
(continental)' or sub-regions not associated with an assigned
ISO 3166 alpha-2 code _are_ defined.
B. UN numeric codes for 'economic groupings' or 'other
groupings' are _not_ defined in the IANA registry and MUST
NOT be used to form language tags.
C. UN numeric codes for countries with ambiguous ISO 3166
alpha-2 codes as defined in Section 3.3 are defined in the
registry and are canonical for the given country or region
defined.
D. The alphanumeric codes in Appendix X of the UN document are
_not_ defined and MUST NOT be used to form language tags.
(At the time this document was created these values match the
ISO 3166 alpha-2 codes.)
4. There may be at most one region subtag in a language tag.
5. 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
using a private-use subtag sequence). Please refer to
Section 4.4 for more information on private use subtags.
"de-CH" represents German ('de') as used in Switzerland ('CH').
"sr-Latn-CS" represents Serbian ('sr') written using Latin script
('Latn') as used in Serbia and Montenegro ('CS').
"es-419" represents Spanish ('es') as used in the UN-defined Latin
America and Caribbean region ('419').
2.2.5 Variant 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 3.4.
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.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
4. Variant subtags MUST be registered with IANA according to the
rules in Section 3.4 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.
"en-scouse" represents the Scouse dialect of English.
"de-CH-1996" represents German as used in Switzerland and as written
using the spelling reform beginning in the year 1996 C.E.
2.2.6 Extension Subtags
The following rules apply to extensions:
1. Extension subtags are separated from the other subtags defined
in this document by a single-letter subtag ("singleton"). The
singleton MUST be one allocated to a registration authority via
the mechanism described in Section 3.6 and cannot 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 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 October 28, 2005 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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 4.3.
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
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 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.
3. A tag MAY consist entirely of private-use subtags.
4. No source is defined for private use subtags. Use of private use
subtags is by private agreement only.
For example: Users who wished to utilize SIL Ethnologue for
identification might agree to exchange tags such as "az-Arab-x-AZE-
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
derbend". This example contains two private-use subtags. The first
is 'AZE' and the second is 'derbend'.
2.2.8 Pre-Existing RFC 3066 Registrations
Existing IANA-registered language tags from RFC 1766 and/or RFC 3066
maintain their validity. IANA will maintain these tags in the
registry under either the "grandfathered" or "redundant" type. For
more information see Section 3.7.
It is important to note that all language tags formed under the
guidelines in this document were either legal, well-formed tags or
could have been registered under RFC 3066.
2.2.9 Classes of Conformance
Implementations may wish to express their level of conformance with
the rules and practices described in this document. There are
generally two classes of conforming implementations: "well-formed"
processors and "validating" processors. Claims of conformance SHOULD
explicitly reference one of these definitions.
An implementation that claims to check for well-formed language tags
MUST:
o Check that the tag and all of its subtags, including extension and
private-use subtags, conform to the ABNF or that the tag is on the
list of grandfathered tags.
o Check that singleton subtags that identify extensions do not
repeat. For example, the tag "en-a-xx-b-yy-a-zz" is not well-
formed.
Well-formed processors are strongly encouraged to implement the
canonicalization rules contained in Section 4.3.
An implementation that claims to be validating MUST:
o Check that the tag is well-formed.
o Specify the particular registry date for which the implementation
performs validation of subtags.
o Check that either the tag is a grandfathered tag, or that all
language, script, region, and variant subtags consist of valid
codes for use in language tags according to the IANA registry as
of the particular date specified by the implementation.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
o Specify which, if any, extension RFCs as defined in Section 3.6
are supported, including version, revision, and date.
o For any such extensions supported, check that all subtags used in
that extension are valid.
o If the processor generates tags, it MUST do so in canonical form,
including any supported extensions, as defined in Section 4.3.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
3. Registry Format and Maintenance
This section defines the Language Subtag Registry and the maintenance
and update procedures associated with it.
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.)
The registry defined under this document 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.
3.1 Format of the IANA Language Subtag Registry
The IANA Language Subtag Registry ("the registry") will consist of a
text file that is machine readable in the format described in this
section, plus copies of the registration forms approved by the
Language Subtag Reviewer in accordance with the process described in
Section 3.4. With the exception of the registration forms for
grandfathered and redundant tags, no registration records will be
maintained for the initial set of subtags.
The registry will be in a modified record-jar format text file [17].
Lines are limited to 72 characters, including all whitespace.
Records are separated by lines containing only the sequence "%%"
(%x25.25).
Each field can be viewed as a single, logical line of ASCII
characters, comprising a field-name and a field-body separated by a
COLON character (%x3A). For convenience, the field-body portion of
this conceptual entity can be split into a multiple-line
representation; this is called "folding". The format of the registry
is described by the following ABNF (per [7]):
registry = record *("%%" CRLF record)
record = 1*( field-name *SP ":" *SP field-body CRLF )
field-name = *(ALPHA/NUM/"-")
field-body = *(ASCCHAR/LWSP)
ASCCHAR = %x21-25 / %x27-7E / UNICHAR ; Note: AMPERSAND is %x26
UNICHAR = "&#x" 2*6HEXDIG ";"
The sequence '..' (%x2E.2E) in a field-body denotes a range of
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
values. Such a range represents all subtags of the same length that
are alphabetically within that range, including the values explicitly
mentioned. For example 'a..c' denotes the values 'a', 'b', and 'c'.
Characters from outside the US-ASCII repertoire, as well as the
AMPERSAND character ("&", %x26) when it occurs in a field-body are
represented by a "Numeric Character Reference" using hexadecimal
notation in the style used by XML 1.0 [18] (see
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#dt-charref>). This consists of the
sequence "&#x" (%x26.23.78) followed by a hexadecimal representation
of the character's code point in ISO/IEC 10646 [6] followed by a
closing semicolon (%x3B). For example, the EURO SIGN, U+20AC, would
be represented by the sequence "€". Note that the hexadecimal
notation may have between two and six digits.
All fields whose field-body contains a date value use the "full-date"
format specified in RFC 3339 [14]. For example: "2004-06-28"
represents June 28, 2004 in the Gregorian calendar.
The first record in the file contains the single field whose field-
name is "File-Date" and whose field-body contains the last
modification date of the registry:
File-Date: 2004-06-28
%%
Subsequent records represent subtags in the registry. 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-value MUST consist of one of the following
strings: "language", "extlang", "script", "region", "variant",
"grandfathered", and "redundant" and denotes the type of tag or
subtag.
o Either 'Subtag' or 'Tag'
* Subtag's field-value contains the subtag being defined. This
field MUST only appear in records of whose Type has one of
these values: "language", "extlang", "script", "region", or
"variant".
* Tag's field-value contains a complete language tag. This field
MUST only appear in records whose Type has one of these values:
"grandfathered" or "redundant".
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
o Description
* Description's field-value contains a non-normative description
of the subtag or tag.
o Added
* Added's field-value contains the date the record was added to
the registry.
The field 'Description' MAY appear more than one time. 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 should not be taken to
represent the actual native name of the language or variation or to
be in any particular language. Most descriptions are taken directly
from source standards such as ISO 639 or ISO 3166.
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
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.
Each record MAY also contain the following fields:
o Canonical
* For fields of type 'language', 'extlang', 'script', 'region',
and 'variant', a canonical mapping of this record to a subtag
record of the same 'Type'.
* For fields of type 'grandfathered' and 'redundant', a canonical
mapping to a complete language tag.
o Deprecated
* Deprecated's field-value contains the date the record was
deprecated.
o Recommended-Prefix
* Recommended-Prefix's field-value contains a language tag with
which this subtag may be used to form a new language tag,
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
perhaps with other subtags as well. This field MUST only
appear in records whose 'Type' field-value is 'variant' or
'extlang'. For example, the 'Recommended-Prefix' for the
variant 'scouse' is 'en', meaning that the tags "en-scouse" and
"en-GB-scouse" might be appropriate while the tag "is-scouse"
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-value is 'language'. See Section 4.1.
The field 'Canonical' SHALL NOT be added to any record already in the
registry. The field 'Canonical' SHALL NOT be modified except for
records of type "grandfathered": therefore a subtag whose record
contains no canonical mapping when the record is created is a
canonical form and will remain so.
The 'Canonical' 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'.
Note that a record that has a 'Canonical' field MUST have a
'Deprecated' field also (although the converse is not true).
The field 'Deprecated' MAY be added to any record via the maintenance
process described in Section 3.2 or via the registration process
described in Section 3.4. 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 may 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 'Canonical' field has no replacement mapping.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
The field 'Recommended-Prefix' MAY appear more than once per record.
Additional fields of this type MAY be added to a record via the
registration process. The field-value of of this field consists of a
language tag that is RECOMMENDED for use as a prefix for this subtag.
For example, the variant subtag 'scouse' has a recommended prefix of
"en". This means that tags starting with the prefix "en-" are most
appropriate with this subtag, so "en-Latn-scouse" and "en-GB-scouse"
are both acceptable, while the tag "fr-scouse" is probably an
inappropriate choice.
The field of type Recommended-Prefix MUST NOT be removed from any
record. The field-value for this type of field MUST NOT be modified.
The field 'Comments' MAY appear more than once per record. 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. Long screeds about a particular subtag are frowned
upon.
The field 'Suppress-Script' MUST only appear in records whose 'Type'
field-value is 'language'. This field may appear at most one time in
a record. This field indicates a script used to write the
overwhelming majority of documents for the given language and which
therefore adds no distinguishing information to a language tag. For
example, virtually all Icelandic documents are written in the Latin
script, making the subtag 'Latn' redundant in the tag "is-Latn".
For examples of registry entries and their format, see Appendix C.
3.2 Maintenance of the Registry
Maintenance of the registry requires that as new codes are assigned
by ISO 639, ISO 15924, and ISO 3166, the Language Subtag Reviewer
will evaluate each assignment, determine whether it conflicts with
existing registry entries, and submit the information to IANA for
inclusion in the registry. If an assignment takes place and the
Language Subtag Reviewer does not do this in a timely manner, then
any interested party may use the procedure in Section 3.4 to register
the appropriate update.
Note: The redundant and grandfathered entries together are the
complete list of tags registered under RFC 3066 [23]. 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 are those that can never be legal under those
same provisions. The items in both lists are permanent and stable,
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
although grandfathered items may be deprecated over time. Refer to
Section 3.7 for more information.
RFC 3066 tags that were deprecated prior to the adoption of this
document 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'.
The Language Subtag Reviewer MUST ensure that new subtags meet the
requirements in Section 4.1 or submit an appropriate alternate subtag
as described in that section. If a change or addition to the
registry is required, the Language Subtag Reviewer will prepare the
complete record, including all fields, and forward it to IANA for
insertion into the registry. If this represents a new subtag, then
the message will indicate that this represents an INSERTION of a
record. If this represents a change to an existing subtag, then the
message must indicate that this represents a MODIFICATION, as shown
in the following example:
LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION
File-Date: 2005-01-02
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: nedis
Description: Natisone dialect
Description: Nadiza dialect
Added: 2003-10-09
Recommended-Prefix: sl
Comments: This is a comment shown
as an example.
%%
Figure 4
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 RFC 3339 [14] "full-date"
format.
3.3 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 and that the choice of language
tag for specific content is also stable over time.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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:
o Values in the fields 'Type', 'Subtag', 'Tag', 'Added' and
'Canonical' MUST NOT be changed and are guaranteed to be stable
over time.
o 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: an historical example of
this would be "Upper Volta" changing to "Burkina Faso".
o Values in the field 'Recommended-Prefix' MAY be added via the
registration process.
o Values in the field 'Recommended-Prefix' MAY be modified, so long
as the modifications broaden the set of recommended prefixes.
That is, a recommended prefix MAY be replaced by one of its own
prefixes. For example, the prefix "en-US" could be replaced by
"en", but not by the ranges "en-Latn", "fr", or "en-US-boont".
o Values in the field 'Recommended-Prefix' MUST NOT be removed.
o 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.
o The field 'Suppress-Script' MAY be added or removed via the
registration process.
o Codes assigned by ISO 639, 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 and their value is
canonical for the meaning assigned to them.
o 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. The registration process
MAY be used to add a note indicating the withdrawal of the code by
the respective standard.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
o Codes assigned by ISO 639, ISO 15924, or ISO 3166 that do not
conflict with existing subtags of the associated type but which
represent the same meaning as an existing subtag of that type are
entered into the IANA registry as new records. The field
'canonical value' for that record MUST contain the existing subtag
of the same meaning
Example If ISO 3166 were to assign the code 'IM' to represent the
value "Isle of Man" (represented in the IANA registry by the UN
M.49 code '833'), '833' remains the canonical subtag and 'IM'
would be assigned '833' as a canonical value. This prevents
tags that are in canonical form from becoming non-canonical.
Example If the tag 'enochian' were registered as a primary
language subtag and ISO 639 subsequently assigned an alpha-3
code to the same language, the new ISO 639 code would be
entered into the IANA registry as a subtag with a canonical
mapping to 'enochian'. The new ISO code can be used, but it is
not canonical.
o Codes assigned by ISO 639, ISO 15924, or ISO 3166 that conflict
with existing subtags of the associated type MUST NOT be entered
into the registry. The following additional considerations apply:
* 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 3.4, 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.
* For all subtags whose meaning is derived from an external
standard (i.e. 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 MA/RA has adopted a similar stability
policy.
* 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 3.4, 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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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.
* 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
canonical entry 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.
* 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 then the Language Subtag Reviewer,
as described in Section 3.4, shall prepare a proposal for
entering the appropriate numeric UN country code as an entry in
the IANA registry.
* 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.
o Stability provisions apply to grandfathered tags with this
exception: should all of the subtags in a grandfathered tag become
valid subtags in the IANA registry, then the grandfathered tag
MUST be marked as 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, if
the subtag 'gan' in the language tag "zh-gan" were to be
registered as an extended language subtag, then the grandfathered
tag "zh-gan" would be deprecated (but existing content or
implementations that use "zh-gan" would remain valid).
3.4 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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 25]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
independent registration of new subtags. Handling of subtags
required for stability and subtags required to keep the registry
synchronized with ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49 within
the limits defined by this document are described in Section 3.2.
Stability provisions are described in Section 3.3.
This procedure MAY also be used to register or alter the information
for the "Description", "Comments", "Deprecated", or "Recommended-
Prefix" fields in a subtag's record as described in Figure 7.
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 requster filling out the registration
form reproduced below. Note that each response is not limited in
size and should take the room necessary to adequately describe the
registration. The fields in the "Record Requested" section SHOULD
follow the 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:
Recommended-Prefix:
Canonical:
Deprecated:
Suppress-Script:
Comments:
4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
5. Reference to published description
of the language (book or article):
6. Any other relevant information:
Figure 5
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. (This is an open list. Requests to be added
should be sent to <ietf-languages-request@iana.org>.)
Variant subtags are generally registered for use with a particular
range of language tags. For example, the subtag 'scouse' is intended
for use with language tags that start with the primary language
subtag "en", since Scouse is a dialect of English. Thus the subtag
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 26]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
'scouse' could be included in tags such as "en-Latn-scouse" or "en-
GB-scouse". This information is stored in the "Recommended-Prefix"
field in the registry. Variant registration requests are REQUIRED to
include at least one "Recommended-Prefix" field in the registration
form.
Any subtag MAY be incorporated into a variety of language tags,
according to the rules of Section 2.1, including tags that do not
match any of the recommended prefixes of the registered subtag.
(Note that this is probably a poor choice.) This makes validation
simpler and thus more uniform across implementations, and does not
require the registration of a separate subtag for the same purpose
and meaning but a different recommended prefix.
The recommended prefixes for a given registered subtag will be
maintained in the IANA registry as a guide to usage. If it is
necessary to add an additional prefix to that list for an existing
language tag, that can be done by filing an additional registration
form. In that form, the "Any other relevant information:" field
should indicate that it is the addition of an additional recommended
prefix.
Requests to add a recommended prefix to a 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. Non-ASCII characters
must be escaped using the syntax described in Section 3.1. 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.
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 may impact the provisions in
Section 3.3.
The Language Subtag Reviewer is responsible for responding to
requests for the registration of subtags through the registration
process and is appointed by the IESG.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 27]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
When the two week period has passed the Language Subtag Reviewer
either forwards the record to be inserted or modified to
iana@iana.org according to the procedure described in Section 3.2, or
rejects the request because of significant objections raised on the
list or due to problems with constraints in this document (which
should be explicitly cited). The reviewer may also extend the review
period in two week increments to permit further discussion. The
reviewer must indicate on the list whether the registration has been
accepted, rejected, or extended following each two week period.
Note that the reviewer can raise objections on the list if he or she
so desires. The important thing is that the objection must be made
publicly.
The applicant is free to modify a rejected application with
additional information and submit it again; this restarts the two
week comment period.
Decisions made by the reviewer may be appealed to the IESG [RFC 2028]
[9] under the same rules as other IETF decisions [RFC 2026] [8].
All approved registration forms are available online in the directory
http://www.iana.org/numbers.html under "languages".
Updates or changes to existing records, including previous
registrations, 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 the canonical
method of referring to a specific language or variant. This
provision does not apply to grandfathered tags, which may become
deprecated due to registration of subtags. For example, the tag
"i-navajo" is deprecated in favor of the ISO 639-1 based subtag 'nv'.
Note: The purpose of the "published description" in the registration
form is intended as an aid to people trying to verify 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 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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 28]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
standardized orthography. Minority languages will be considered
equally on their own merits.
3.5 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 can 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. No language subtags will be registered for codes
that exist in ISO 639-1 or ISO 639-2, which are under
consideration by the ISO 639 maintenance or registration
authorities, or which 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 in the IANA registry (to the extent that it is very
unlikely that any subtags will be registered of this type).
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
'scouse' subtag (the Scouse dialect of English).
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 3.3. This includes descriptions, recommended prefixes,
comments, deprecation of obsolete items, or the addition of script
or extlang information to primary language subtags.
This document leaves the decision on what subtags or changes to
subtags are appropriate (or not) to the registration process
described in Section 3.4.
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)
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 29]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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
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
3.6 Extensions and Extensions Namespace
Extension subtags are those introduced by single-letter subtags other
than 'x-'. They are reserved for the generation of identifiers which
contain a language component, and are compatible with applications
understand language tags. For example, they might be used to define
locale identifiers, which are generally based on language.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 30]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
The structure and form of extensions are defined by this document so
that implementations can be created that are forward compatible with
applications that may be created using single-letter subtags in the
future. In addition, defining a mechanism for maintaining single-
letter subtags will lend to the stability of this document by
reducing the likely need for future revisions or updates.
Allocation of a single-letter subtag shall take the form of an RFC
defining 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-letter (singleton)
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 31]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
subtags. This registry will use the record-jar format 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 will 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, the corresponding registry, or meet
other conditions imposed by this section of this document may be
appealed to the IESG [RFC 2028] [9] under the same rules as other
IETF decisions (see [8]) 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 6: Format of Records in the Language Tag Extensions Registry
'Identifier' contains the single letter subtag (singleton) assigned
to the extension. The Internet-Draft submitted to define the
extension should specific which letter 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 RFC 3339 [14]. 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 October 28, 2005 [Page 32]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
'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 may 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, it should be noted that
some protocols may impose upper limits on the length of the strings
used to store or transport the language tag.
3.7 Conversion of the RFC 3066 Language Tag Registry
Upon publication of this document as a BCP, the existing IANA
language tag registry must be converted into the new subtag registry.
This section defines the process for performing this conversion.
The impact on the IANA maintainers of the registry of this conversion
will be a small increase in the frequency of new entries. The
initial set of records represents no impact on IANA, since the work
to create it will be performed externally (as defined in this
section). Future work will be limited to inserting or replacing
whole records preformatted for IANA by the Language Subtag Reviewer.
When this document is published, an email will be sent by the
chair(s) of the LTRU working group to the LTRU and ietf-languages
mail lists advising of the impending conversion of the registry. In
that notice, the chair(s) will provide a URL whose referred content
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 33]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
is the proposed IANA Language Subtag Registry following conversion.
There will be a Last Call period of not less than four weeks for
comments and corrections to be discussed on the
ietf-languages@iana.org mail list. Changes as a result of comments
will not restart the Last Call period. At the end of the period, the
chair(s) will forward the URL to IANA, which will post the new
registry on-line.
Tags that are currently deprecated will be maintained as
grandfathered entries. The record for the grandfathered entry will
contain a 'Deprecated' field with the most appropriate date that can
be determined for when the record was deprecated. The 'Comments'
field will contain the reason for the deprecation. The 'Canonical'
field will contain the tag that replaces the value. For example, the
tag "art-lojban" is deprecated and will be placed in the
grandfathered section. It's 'Deprecated' field will contain the
deprecation date and 'Canonical' field the value "jbo".
Tags that are not deprecated that consist entirely of subtags that
are valid under this document and which have the correct form and
format for tags defined by this document are superseded by this
document. Such tags are placed in records of type 'redundant' in the
registry. For example, "zh-Hant" is now defined by this document.
Tags that are not deprecated and which contain subtags which are
consistent with registration under the guidelines in this document
will have a new subtag registration created for each eligible subtag.
If all of the subtags in the original tag are fully defined by the
resulting registrations or by this document, then the original tag is
superseded by this document. Such tags are placed in the 'redundant'
section of the registry. For example, "en-boont" will result in a
new subtag 'boont' and the RFC 3066 registered tag "en-boont" placed
in the redundant section of the registry.
Tags that contain one or more subtags that do not match the valid
registration pattern and which are not otherwise defined by this
document will have records of type 'grandfathered' created in the
registry.
There will be a reasonable period in which the community may comment
on the proposed list entries, which SHALL be no less than four weeks
in length. At the completion of this period, the chair(s) will
notify iana@iana.org and the ltru and ietf-languages mail lists that
the task is complete and forward the necessary materials to IANA for
publication.
Registrations that are in process under the rules defined in RFC 3066
MAY be completed under the former rules, at the discretion of the
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 34]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
language tag reviewer. Any new registrations submitted after the
request for conversion of the registry MUST be rejected.
All existing RFC 3066 language tag registrations will be maintained
in perpetuity.
Users of tags that are grandfathered should consider registering
appropriate subtags in the IANA subtag registry (but are not required
to).
Where two subtags have the same meaning, the priority of which to
make canonical SHALL be the following:
o As of the date of acceptance of this document as a BCP, if a code
exists in the associated ISO standard and it is not deprecated or
withdrawn as of that date, then it has priority.
o Otherwise, the earlier-registered tag in the associated ISO
standard has priority.
UN numeric codes assigned to 'macro-geographical (continental)' or
sub-regions not associated with an assigned ISO 3166 alpha-2 code are
defined in the IANA registry and are valid for use in language tags.
These codes MUST be added to the initial version of the registry.
The UN numeric codes for 'economic groupings' or 'other groupings',
and the alphanumeric codes in Appendix X of the UN document MUST NOT
be added to the registry.
When creating records for ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO3166, and UN M.49
codes, the following criteria SHALL be applied to the inclusion,
canonical mapping, and deprecation of codes:
For each standard, the date of the standard referenced in RFC 1766 is
selected as the starting date. Codes that were valid on that date in
the selected standard are added to the registry. Codes that were
previously assigned by were vacated or withdrawn before that date are
not added to the registry. For each successive change to the
standard, any additional assignments are added to the registry.
Values that are withdrawn are marked as deprecated, but not removed.
Changes in meaning or assignment of a subtag are permitted during
this process (cf. 'CS'). This continues up to the date that this
document was adopted. The resulting set of records is added to the
registry. Future changes or additions to this portion of the
registry are governed by the provisions of this document.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 35]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
4. Formation and Processing of Language Tags
This section addresses how to use the registry with the language tag
format to choose, form and process language tags.
4.1 Choice of Language Tag
One may occasionally be faced with several possible tags for the same
body of text.
Interoperability is best served when all users use the same language
tag in order 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.
Of particular note, many 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 were not formally defined in RFC
3066 and their use may affect matching and subtag identification by
implementations of RFC 3066, as these subtags appear between the
primary language and region subtags. For example, if a user requests
content in an implementation of Section 2.5 of RFC 3066 [23] using
the language range "en-US", content labeled "en-Latn-US" will not
match the request. Therefore it is important to know when script
subtags will customarily be used and when they should not be used.
Extended language subtags (type 'extlang' in the registry, see
Section 3.1) also appear between the primary language and region
subtags and are reserved for future standardization. Applications
may benefit from their judicious use in forming language tags in the
future and similar recommendations are expected to apply to their use
as apply to script subtags.
Standards, protocols and applications that reference this document
normatively but apply different rules to the ones given in this
section MUST specify how the procedure varies from the one given
here.
The choice of subtags used to form a language tag should be guided by
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.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 36]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
* 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 which script subtags 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 may be appropriate to choose to indicate
both scripts to aid in content selection, such as the
application of a stylesheet.
3. If a subtag has a 'Canonical' field in its registry entry, the
canonical subtag SHOULD be used to form the language tag in
preference to any of its aliases.
* For example, use 'he' for Hebrew in preference to 'iw'.
4. The 'und' (Undetermined) primary language subtag SHOULD NOT be
used to label content, even if the language is unknown. Omitting
the language tag altogether is preferred to using a tag with a
primary language subtag of 'und'. The 'und' subtag may be useful
for protocols that require a language tag to be provided. The
'und' subtag may also be useful when matching language tags in
certain situations.
5. The 'mul' (Multiple) primary language subtag SHOULD NOT be used
whenever the protocol allows the separate tags for multiple
languages, as is the case for the Content-Language header in
HTTP. The 'mul' subtag conveys little useful information:
content in multiple languages should individually tag the
languages where they appear or otherwise indicate the actual
language in preference to the 'mul' subtag.
6. The same variant subtag SHOULD NOT be used more than once within
a language tag.
* For example, do not use "en-GB-scouse-scouse".
To ensure consistent backward compatibility, this document contains
several provisions to account for potential instability in the
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 37]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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 obsolete. In addition, tags that are in
canonical form will always be in canonical form.
4.2 Meaning of the Language Tag
The language tag always defines a language as spoken (or written,
signed or otherwise signaled) by human beings for communication of
information to other human beings. Computer languages such as
programming languages are explicitly excluded.
If a language tag B contains language tag A as a prefix, then B is
typically "narrower" or "more specific" than A. For example, "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 may 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 may not be able to read the other, even though the text
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.
The relationship between the tag and the information it relates to is
defined by the standard describing the context in which it appears.
Accordingly, this section can only give 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 required 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/
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 38]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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.
4.3 Canonicalization of Language Tags
Since a particular language tag may be used in 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. None of the subtags in the language tag has a canonical_value
mapping in the IANA registry (see Section 3.1). Subtags with a
canonical_value mapping MUST be replaced with their mapping in
order to canonicalize the tag.
3. If more than one extension subtag sequence exists, the extension
sequences are ordered into case-insensitive ASCII order by
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-NH" (English as used in the New
Hebrides) is not canonical because the 'NH' subtag has a canonical
mapping to 'VU' (Vanuatu).
Note: Canonicalization of language tags does not imply anything about
the use of upper or lowercase letter in subtags as described in
Section 2.1. All comparisons MUST be performed in a case-insensitive
manner.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 39]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Note: if the field 'Deprecated' appears in a registry record without
an accompanying 'Canonical' 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 may 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
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 3.6.
4.4 Considerations for Private Use Subtags
Private-use subtags require private agreement between the parties
that intend to use or exchange language tags that use them and great
caution should be used in employing them 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.
The use of 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
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 40]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
manner compared to tags that use opaque, privately defined subtags,
so the choice of the best approach may depend on the particular
domain in question.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 41]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
5. IANA Considerations
This section deals with the processes and requirements necessary for
IANA to undertake to maintain the rsubtag and extension registries as
defined by this document and in accordance with the requirements of
RFC 2434 [11].
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.
Upon adoption of this document, the process described in Section 3.7
will be used to generate the initial Language Subtag Registry. The
initial set of records represents no impact on IANA, since the work
to create it will be performed externally (as defined in that
section). The new registry will be listed under "Language Tags" at
<http://www.iana.org/numbers.html>. The existing directory of
registration forms and RFC 3066 registrations will be relabeled as
"Language Tags (Obsolete)" and maintained (but not added to or
modified).
Future work on the Language Subtag Registry will be limited to
inserting or replacing whole records preformatted for IANA by the
Language Subtag Reviewer as described in Section 3.2 of this
document. Each record will be sent to iana@iana.org with a subject
line indicating whether the enclosed record is an insertion (of a new
record) or a replacment of an existing record which has a Type and
Subtag (or Tag) field that exactly matches the record sent. Records
cannot be deleted from the registry.
The Language Tag Extensions registry will also be generated and sent
to IANA as described in Section 3.6. This registry may contain at
most 25 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
will include the record to insert in the exact format described in
Section 3.6. 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 October 28, 2005 [Page 42]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
6. Security Considerations
The only security issue that has been raised with language tags since
the publication of RFC 1766 [21], which stated that "Security issues
are believed to be irrelevant to this memo", is a concern with
language identifiers used in content negotiation - that they may 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,
RFC 3552 [15] for best current practice guidance on security threats
and defenses).
Although the specification of valid subtags for an extension 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 October 28, 2005 [Page 43]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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 may 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 October 28, 2005 [Page 44]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
8. Changes from RFC 3066
The main goals for this revision of language tags were the following:
*Compatibility.* All valid RFC 3066 language tags (including those
in the IANA registry) remain valid in this specification. Thus
there is complete backward compatibility of this specification with
existing content. In addition, this document defines language tags
in such as way as to ensure future compatibility, and processors
based solely on the RFC 3066 ABNF (such as those described in XML
Schema version 1.0 [19]) will be able to process tags described by
this document.
*Stability.* Because of the changes in underlying ISO standards, a
valid RFC 3066 language tag may become invalid (or have its meaning
change) at a later date. With so much of the world's computing
infrastructure dependent on language tags, this is simply
unacceptable: it invalidates content that may have an extensive
shelf-life. In this specification, once a language tag is valid, it
remains valid forever. Previously, there was no way to determine
when two tags were equivalent. This specification provides a stable
mechanism for doing so, through the use of canonical forms. These
are also stable, so that implementations can depend on the use of
canonical forms to assess equivalency.
*Validity.* The structure of language tags defined by this document
makes it possible to determine if a particular tag is well-formed
without regard for the actual content or "meaning" of the tag as a
whole. This is important because the registry and underlying
standards change over time. In addition, it must be possible to
determine if a tag is valid (or not) for a given point in time in
order to provide reproducible, testable results. This process must
not be error-prone; otherwise even intelligent people will generate
implementations that give different results. This specification
provides for that by having a single data file, with specific
versioning information, so that the validity of language tags at any
point in time can be precisely determined (instead of interpolating
values from many separate sources).
*Extensibility.* It is important to be able to differentiate between
written forms of language -- for many implementations this is more
important than distinguishing between spoken variants of a language.
Languages are written in a wide variety of different scripts, so this
document provides for the generative use of ISO 15924 script codes.
Like the generative use of ISO language and country codes in RFC
3066, this allows combinations to be produced without resorting to
the registration process. The addition of UN codes provides for the
generation of language tags with regional scope, which is also
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 45]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
required for information technology.
The recast of the registry from containing whole language tags to
subtags is a key part of this. An important feature of RFC 3066 was
that it allowed generative use of subtags. This allows people to
meaningfully use generated tags, without the delays in registering
whole tags, and the burden on the registry of having to supply all of
the combinations that people may find useful.
Because of the widespread use of language tags, it is potentially
disruptive to have periodic revisions of the core specification,
despite demonstrated need. The extension mechanism provides for a
way for independent RFCs to define extensions to language tags.
These extensions have a very constrained, well-defined structure to
prevent extensions from interfering with implementations of language
tags defined in this document. The document also anticipates
features of ISO 639-3 with the addition of the extended language
subtags, as well as the possibility of other ISO 639 parts becoming
useful for the formation of language tags in the future. The use and
definition of private use tags has also been modified, to allow
people to move as much information as possible out of private use
tags, and into the regular structure. The goal is to dramatically
reduce the need to produce a revision of this document in the future.
The specific changes in this document to meet these goals are:
o Defines the ABNF and rules for subtags so that the category of all
subtags can be determined without reference to the registry.
o Adds the concept of well-formed vs. validating processors,
defining the rules by which an implementation can claim to be one
or the other.
o Replaces the IANA language tag registry with a language subtag
registry that provides a complete list of valid subtags in the
IANA registry. This allows for robust implementation and ease of
maintenance. The language subtag registry becomes the canonical
source for forming language tags.
o Provides a process that guarantees stability of language tags, by
handling reuse of values by ISO 639, ISO 15924, and ISO 3166 in
the event that they register a previously used value for a new
purpose.
o Allows ISO 15924 script code subtags and allows them to be used
generatively. Adds the concept of a variant subtag and allows
variants to be used generatively. Adds the ability to use a class
of UN tags as regions.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 46]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
o Defines the private-use tags in ISO 639, ISO 15924, and ISO 3166
as the mechanism for creating private-use language, script, and
region subtags respectively.
o Adds a well-defined extension mechanism.
o Defines an extended language subtag, possibly for use with certain
anticipated features of ISO 639-3.
Ed Note: The following items are provided for the convenience of
reviewers and will be removed from the final document.
Changes between draft-ietf-ltru-registry-00 and this version are:
o Updated the ABNF for singleton to make it conform to RFC 2234 and
pass the Fenner parser (F.Ellermann)
o Split the references into informative and normative lists.
Eliminated dead references carried forward from previous versions
of this document. (A.Phillips)
o Added a reference to RFC 3552 (BCP 72) to the Security
Considerations section (I.McDonald)
o Modified the first sentence in Section 2.1.1 from "on the number
of size of subtags in a Language Tag" to be proper English and
convey more meaning. (A.Phillips)
o Various examples that used the variant 'boont' were changes to use
the variant 'scouse' instead. (J.Cowan)
o Added an additional example ("en-a-bbb-x-a-ccc") to the extension/
singleton rules in Section 2.2.6 to illustrate that singletons can
recur in private use sequences (A.Phillips)
o Modified the sentence describing the possibilities for variant
registration (see Section 3.5) to include transliterations and
other transformations per discussion on the list. (M.T. Carrasco
Benitez)
o Converted the format of the registry to record-jar format. This
subtantially replaces section 3.1 (R.Presuhn)
o Subtantially revised the rules for registry creation to reflect
the Date A/B boundaries on adopting ISO 3166 codes (J.Cowan)
o Modified the registration process section and form to deal with
both new additions and revisions of records, as well as making
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 47]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
life easier on the Subtag Reviewer by matching the fields to the
registry format. (A.Phillips)
o Changed the reference to RFC 2234 to RFC 2234bis (recently
adopted). (S.Hollenbeck)
o Modifications to make this document conformant with RFC 3978
(recently adopted). (R.Presuhn)
o Added an informative reference to XML Schema 1.0 Part 2: Second
Edition in this section. (J.Morfin)
o Expanded the jargon-ish 'extlang' to "extended language" in this
section. (J.Morfin)
o Corrected an egregious error in the ABNF (%x6A -> %x5A in one of
the ranges) (A.Phillips)
o Split Maintenance of the Registry from Format of the Registry
(A.Phillips)
o Revision of section Section 3.4 to make it consistent with the new
section Section 3.2. (A.Phillips)
o Separated IANA Considerations section from the registry definition
and registration procedures. ()
o Added additional choice information dealing with scripts and
extlangs. These items were also moved to a new section following
the registry format because of interdependence.
o Updated the IANA Considerations section.
o Added appeal and maintenance requirements to the extensions
Section 3.6 section. (A.Phillips)
o Added an additional bullet point to Section 3.5 enumerating the
changes that can be registered to a record (previously we only
listed the options for new subtags). (A.Phillips)
o Added the phrase ", as well as the possibility of other ISO 639
parts becoming useful for the formation of language tags in the
future" to this section in anticipation of revising the ABNF to
allow for the possibility of ISO 639-6 being used in language tags
in a future revision of this document. (D.Garside)
o Added the concept of 'Suppress-Script' to Section 4.1, as well as
to the registry format in Section 3.1, Section 3.3 and
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 48]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Section 3.2. (many)
o Added text requiring the I-D that defines an extension to choose a
letter (and allowing the IESG to change it if necessary).
(D.Ewell?)
o Removed the ABNF notes from the text about case insensitivity
(F.Ellermann)
o Removed the second, rather repetitive reference to Appendix B in
Section 2.1 (A.Phillips)
o Fixed missing whitesapce in Section 2.1 (F.Ellermann)
o Changed "empty" to "omitted" in Section 2.2.1 (F.Ellermann)
o Changed the intro to Section 2.2.1 and otherwise tugged at that
section to deal with i-* grandfathered items. (F.Ellermann)
o Reserved alpha4 language subtags for future standardization.
(D.Garside)
o Incorporate changes to be consistent with RFC 3978, including the
new xml2rfc processor. Note that this has an effect on the ABNF,
since some of the comments were too wide previously (comments were
revised to fit the 72 character maximum). (S.Hollenbeck)
o Remove the Latin-1 restriction on the 'Description' field.
Provide guidance for registration of content, including a
requirement for at least one representation in the Latin script.
(F.Ellermann, A.Phillips)
o Make the variant subtlety less so. (F.Ellermann)
o Various 'you' removals and cleanup (M.Davis)
o Inserted additional non-normative caveat about the 'MUL' subtag
(A.Phillips)
o Various editorial edits (J.Cowan)
o Use normative language when giving permission to not store long
language tags in Section 2.1.1. (J.Cowan)
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 49]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
9. References
9.1 Normative References
[1] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-
1:2002, Codes for the representation of names of languages --
Part 1: Alpha-2 code", ISO Standard 639, 2002.
[2] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO 639-2:1998
- Codes for the representation of names of languages -- Part 2:
Alpha-3 code - edition 1", August 1988.
[3] ISO TC46/WG3, "ISO 15924:2003 (E/F) - Codes for the
representation of names of scripts", January 2004.
[4] International Organization for Standardization, "Codes for the
representation of names of countries, 3rd edition",
ISO Standard 3166, August 1988.
[5] Statistical 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.
[6] International Organization for Standardization, "ISO/IEC 10646-
1:2000. Information technology -- Universal Multiple-Octet
Coded Character Set (UCS) -- Part 1: Architecture and Basic
Multilingual Plane and ISO/IEC 10646-2:2001. Information
technology -- Universal Multiple-Octet Coded Character Set
(UCS) -- Part 2: Supplementary Planes, as, from time to time,
amended, replaced by a new edition or expanded by the addition
of new parts", 2000.
[7] Crocker, D. and P. Overell, "Augmented BNF for Syntax
Specifications: ABNF", draft-crocker-abnf-rfc2234bis-00 (work
in progress), March 2005.
[8] Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3",
BCP 9, RFC 2026, October 1996.
[9] Hovey, R. and S. Bradner, "The Organizations Involved in the
IETF Standards Process", BCP 11, RFC 2028, October 1996.
[10] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement
Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
[11] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA
Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 2434,
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 50]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
October 1998.
[12] Hoffman, P. and F. Yergeau, "UTF-16, an encoding of ISO 10646",
RFC 2781, February 2000.
[13] Carpenter, B., Baker, F., and M. Roberts, "Memorandum of
Understanding Concerning the Technical Work of the Internet
Assigned Numbers Authority", RFC 2860, June 2000.
[14] Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet:
Timestamps", RFC 3339, July 2002.
[15] Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on
Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July 2003.
9.2 Informative References
[16] 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>.
[17] Raymond, E., "The Art of Unix Programming", 2003.
[18] Bray (et al), T., "Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0",
02 2004.
[19] Biron, P., Ed. and A. Malhotra, Ed., "XML Schema Part 2:
Datatypes Second Edition", 10 2004, <
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/>.
[20] Unicode Consortium, "The Unicode Consortium. The Unicode
Standard, Version 4.1.0, defined by: The Unicode Standard,
Version 4.0 (Boston, MA, Addison-Wesley, 2003. ISBN 0-321-
18578-1), as amended by Unicode 4.0.1
(http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.0.1) and by Unicode
4.1.0 (http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode4.1.0).",
March 2005.
[21] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
RFC 1766, March 1995.
[22] Freed, N. and K. Moore, "MIME Parameter Value and Encoded Word
Extensions: Character Sets, Languages, and Continuations",
RFC 2231, November 1997.
[23] Alvestrand, H., "Tags for the Identification of Languages",
BCP 47, RFC 3066, January 2001.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 51]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Authors' Addresses
Addison Phillips (editor)
Quest Software
Email: addison.phillips@quest.com
Mark Davis (editor)
IBM
Email: mark.davis@us.ibm.com
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 52]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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 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 (in alphabetical order) contributed to this
document or to RFCs 1766 and 3066:
Glenn Adams, Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Tim Berners-Lee, Marc Blanchet,
Nathaniel Borenstein, Eric Brunner, Sean M. Burke, M.T. Carrasco
Benitez, Jeremy Carroll, John Clews, Jim Conklin, Peter Constable,
John Cowan, Mark Crispin, Dave Crocker, Martin Duerst, Frank
Ellerman, Michael Everson, Doug Ewell, Ned Freed, Tim Goodwin, Dirk-
Willem van Gulik, Marion Gunn, Joel Halpren, Elliotte Rusty Harold,
Paul Hoffman, Scott Hollenbeck, Richard Ishida, Olle Jarnefors, Kent
Karlsson, John Klensin, Alain LaBonte, Eric Mader, Ira McDonald,
Keith Moore, Chris Newman, Masataka Ohta, Randy Presuhn, George
Rhoten, Markus Scherer, Keld Jorn Simonsen, Thierry Sourbier, Otto
Stolz, Tex Texin, Andrea Vine, Rhys Weatherley, Misha Wolf, Francois
Yergeau 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 must go to Michael Everson,
who has served as language tag reviewer for almost the complete
period since the publication of RFC 1766. Special thanks to Doug
Ewell, for his production of the first complete subtag registry, and
his work in producing a test parser for verifying language tags.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 53]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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 Simlified script as used in
mainland China)
sr-Latn-CS (Serbian written using the Latin script as used in
Serbia and Montenegro)
Language-Variant:
en-boont (Boontling dialect of English)
en-scouse (Scouse dialect of English)
Language-Region-Variant:
en-GB-scouse (Scouse dialect of English as used in the UK)
Language-Script-Region-Variant:
sl-Latn-IT-nedis (Nadiza dialect of Slovenian written using the
Latin script as used in Italy. Note that this tag is not
recommended because subtag 'sl' has a Suppress-Script value of
'Latn')
Language-Region:
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 54]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
de-DE (German for Germany)
en-US (English as used in the United States)
es-419 (Spanish for Latin America and Caribbean region using the
UN region code)
Private-use subtags:
de-CH-x-phonebk
az-Arab-x-AZE-derbend
Extended language subtags (examples ONLY: extended languages must be
defined by revision or update to this document):
zh-min
zh-min-nan-Hant-CN
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-CS (Serbian, private script, for Serbia and Montenegro)
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)
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 55]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
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)
ar-a-aaa-b-bbb-a-ccc (two extensions with same single letter
prefix)
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 56]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Appendix C. Example Registry
Example Registry
File-Date: 2005-04-18
%%
Type: language
Subtag: aa
Description: Afar
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: language
Subtag: ab
Description: Abkhazian
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: language
Subtag: ae
Description: Avestan
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: language
Subtag: ar
Description: Arabic
Added: 2004-07-06
Suppress-Script: Arab
Comment: Arabic text is usually written in Arabic script
%%
Type: language
Subtag: qaa..qtz
Description: PRIVATE USE
Added: 2004-08-01
Comment: Use private use codes in preference
to the x- singleton for primary language
Comment: This is an example of two comments.
%%
Type: script
Subtag: Arab
Description: Arabic
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: script
Subtag: Armn
Description: Armenian
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: script
Subtag: Bali
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 57]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Description: Balinese
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: script
Subtag: Batk
Description: Batak
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: region
Subtag: AA
Description: PRIVATE USE
Added: 2004-08-01
%%
Type: region
Subtag: AD
Description: Andorra
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: region
Subtag: AE
Description: United Arab Emirates
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: region
Subtag: AX
Description: Åland Islands
Added: 2004-07-06
Comments: The description shows a Unicode escape
for the letter A-ring.
%%
Type: region
Subtag: 001
Description: World
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: region
Subtag: 002
Description: Africa
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: region
Subtag: 003
Description: North America
Added: 2004-07-06
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: 1901
Description: Traditional German
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 58]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
orthography
Added: 2004-09-09
Recommended-Prefix: de
Comment: <shows continuation>
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: 1996
Description: German orthography of 1996
Added: 2004-09-09
Recommended-Prefix: de
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: boont
Description: Boontling
Added: 2003-02-14
Recommended-Prefix: en
%%
Type: variant
Subtag: gaulish
Description: Gaulish
Added: 2001-05-25
Recommended-Prefix: cel
%%
Type: grandfathered
Tag: art-lojban
Description: Lojban
Added: 2001-11-11
Canonical: jbo
Deprecated: 2003-09-02
%%
Type: grandfathered
Tag: en-GB-oed
Description: English, Oxford English Dictionary spelling
Added: 2003-07-09
%%
Type: grandfathered
Tag: i-ami
Description: 'Amis
Added: 1999-05-25
%%
Type: grandfathered
Tag: i-bnn
Description: Bunun
Added: 1999-05-25
%%
Type: redundant
Tag: az-Arab
Description: Azerbaijani in Arabic script
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 59]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Added: 2003-05-30
%%
Type: redundant
Tag: az-Cyrl
Description: Azerbaijani in Cyrillic script
Added: 2003-05-30
%%
Figure 7: Example of the Registry Format
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 60]
Internet-Draft langtags-registry April 2005
Intellectual Property Statement
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.
Disclaimer of Validity
This document and the information contained herein are provided on an
"AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS
OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET
ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE
INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
Copyright Statement
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2005). 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.
Acknowledgment
Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the
Internet Society.
Phillips & Davis Expires October 28, 2005 [Page 61]
| PAFTECH AB 2003-2026 | 2026-04-23 09:56:58 |