IETF RFC 3066 - Tags for the Identification of Languages
IETF3066
URI:ISO:2.16.840.1.113883.6.121
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
UNINETT
Pb. 6883 Elgeseter
N-7002 TRONDHEIM
NORWAY
EMail: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Phone: +47 73 59 70 94
This standard describes how language tags are to be encoded and used throughout the WWW
Note: This specification obsoletes IETF 1766
IETF 3066 doesn't specify language tags directly. It instead describes a mechanism for extending ISO 639 -1 Two character codes for the representation of names of languages and ISO 639-2 - Three character codes for the representation of languages
ISO 639-1 contains ~135 language codes
ISO 639-2 contains ~500 language codes
This is a flat structure so there are no edges
Harold Solbrig solbrig@mayo.edu
2005-03-10
The following attributes of the content characterization will be completed by XMDR staff. These attributes will be collected for those content collections which are considered to be high priority for inclusion in the prototype.
Attributes marked with an asterisk (*) are considered mandatory.
2005-01
Internet Engineering Task Force
Internet Assigned Numbers Authority
RFC 3066 specifies an identifier mechanism, a registration function for values to be used with that identifier mechanism, and a construct for matching against those values.
IANA maintains a registry of assigned language tags
English
Indicate type of metadata according to the following graph-theoretic classification scheme:
none
Custom Set of Text Tables
?
?
ISO was recently convinced to make the ISO 639-1 and 639-2 publicly available.
None
None
Changes occur needed
See: RFC3066
UTF-8
NA
ISO 639-1
ISO 639-2
ISO 3166
Other similar or related metadata resources.
Other tools as well
Anyone
ISO 3066:2001 - Tags for the Identification of Languages. H. Alvestrand
Harold Solbrig
2005-03-11
The following data elements are to be supplied by XMDR project staff/collaborators.
Attributes marked with an asterisk (*) are considered mandatory.
Names of persons (if any) on XMDR project (and contact info) who are familiar with this data set. XMDR participant organizations who have copies of this metadata resource.
Names of persons on XMDR project (and contact info) who evaluated this metadata resource for inclusion (e.g., if the content survey was completed by someone at the content repository).
Priority suggested for acquisition and ingestion of this metadata resource.