2011/8/31 Doug Ewell <[email protected]>: > The solution would have been easy: > > - use www.example.org for the generic site > - use www.en.example.org for the English-language site > - use www.fr.example.org for the French-language site > - use www.www.example.org (and only that) for the Wawa site > > No need for private-use identifiers here. (I agree that coding > standards like 639 should have private-use areas, but not to extend the > standard beyond its intended scope as Philippe suggests in his last > paragraph.)
I've not suggested that. he scope of ISO 639 remains exactly the same even if it reserves a private-user area, that it does not need to specify. Much like in ISO 3166 with its private use codes. I maintain that *any* standard that wants to unify past standards, needs a private-use area (this includes the UCS of course). This is architectural and needed for long-term stability of the standard itself, as a solution against many incompatible variations (called "hacked encodings"), something that has occured a lot before the creation and unification of the UCS, creating a nightmare of ambiguities for transcoders: it's safer to isolate those few needed deviations in a space that will manage those exceptions, and for which unified solutions will emerge later as part of the core standard. -- Philippe.
