Minh Nguyen wrote: With rare exceptions, we follow RFC 3066 for language codes; this is the standard used on the web for the Content-Language HTTP header, HTML 'lang' attribute, etc. This uses, roughly, in priority order: * 2-letter ISO 639-1 code * 3-letter ISO 639-2 code * One of the specially registered 'i-*' codes * Non-standard 'x-*' codes ISO 639-3 codes will most likely end up in there sooner or later. Where no standard codes are available, we've sometimes ended up using something else; in this case we *should* be using the ISO 639-3 3-letter code. If there are exceptions that are definitely wrong, we probably want to fix that. That was crude load-balancing before we had something better set up. :) It's redirected if you've got really old URLs from that period. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)

Hoi, WiktionaryZ does not follow RFC 3066 because it is unusable for its purposes. The RFC 3066 is unusable for the languages that are not addressed by it. To link into the projects of the Wikimedia Foundation we can include the code used by the Wikimedia Foundation. The practice of using codes that are made up and that are not distinguishable from ISO-639 codes is against the terms of use. The codes qaa to qtz are the codes where you are free to do what you want to do. Thanks, GerardM Brion Vibber wrote:

Hoi, The RFC 4646 provides many things that I will gladly follow particularly in the way it allows for extentions. I have discussed the issues that I have with Felix Sasaki (W3C) and Gerhard Budin (ISO) among others. - Many recognised languages have to "fit" as a subtag of another language. This is for many people who think "politically" about languages not acceptable. The way it is implemented is also a travesty for people who know about languages. The motivation is to provide backwards compatibility even though ISO-639-2 was dismissed as useless and ISO-639-3 had to be created really quickly. - Some of the things not standardised yet in the ISO codes are worked on as new standards (eg dialects) the proposed codes are not known at this time and this creates a mess of its own. - Orthographies are not supported in the planned for extentions to ISO-639. This is acknowledged as an ommission. Consequently, it is much better to make a clean break while still conforming to standards. The standards complicance existing in WiktionaryZ is better than the standards compliance of the current crop of Wikimedia language codes. They do not conform to a standard because it breaks standards in many places. Some of the language codes used are voted in with a total disregard of what would be valid vis a vis the terms of usage of the ISO-639 codes. Let me repeat that WiktionaryZ does include a code for Wikimedia language codes; it makes sense to have backwards compatibility. The basis for inclusion at WiktionaryZ for languages at this time are the ISO-639-3 codes. When need be the ISO-639-3 codes are extended using RFC 4646 to provide guidelines on how to do this and we will and do ask people in standards organisations on how to solve issues that are outside what RFC 4646 provides answers for. We do have a code currently indicated as "ISO-639-2" in our database. We could enter something there that would be compatible with the RFC 4646 once it is figured out what would be a valid code under this regime. Problematic is that many of the ISO-639-2 codes are depreciated in ISO-639-3 and, it would be a nice academic excercise to create these codes where I do not want to deal with the political fall out that this creates. Thanks, GerardM On 10/7/06, Shinjiman <shinjiman(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, The ISO-639 have terms of use.. Thanks, GerardM On 10/8/06, Jay R. Ashworth <jra(a)baylink.com> wrote:

Simetrical wrote: Hoi, That would be the case when they were not called "terms of use" Thanks, GerardM

Andre Engels wrote: Hoi, This is like saying: I do not want to use the kilo or the Ampere because you are not interpret in a way that you see fit. Open Souce is about SOFTWARE. But ISO-639 are about STANDARDS it is no use if it is not used as a standard ie as a given. Thanks, GerardM

Hoi, The ISO standards are a bit more than just language standards. They are absolutely free to use them as is. You are not allowed to represent codes that you make up that confuse with what is in the standard. For ISO-639 this is absolutely reasonable given that there are over 7000 codes to start off with. So if you refuse to use standards that you can not change start telling people in the city how many bunder your father has on his farm. You will find that many do not have an idea how wide an area that is. Free is a relative thing. For some things it makes no sense at all to have them Free as in you can change it in any which way. The standard organisations have several ways in which they can be influenced. You can discuss with them about language issues and, that is what the language subcommittee of the WMF hopes to do. In the mean time, you have to realise that the ISO standards are an integral part of how the world wide web works. When you decide that you will not use these standards, I am afraid your computer will not be able to communicate with the Internet. Standards are standards for a reason. Thanks, GerardM On 10/10/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, Actually it says in the database what language is used. These languages are indeed the ISO codes. Google and other organisations will have a hard time to know what language is ment if we were to have our "own" codes. Indeed we would not be as popular if people did not find us on the search engines. Another thing, I know that Brion will not allow for deviating from the standard more than we already do. Thanks, GerardM On 10/10/06, Andre Engels <andreengels(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Shinjiman wrote: Thank you for saying something productive and to the point. We can look into this. -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)