+1 for using BCP-47, which will give you the overall most flexiblity.

--
Mark A. Matienzo <[log in to unmask]> | http://anarchivi.st/
Director of Technology
Digital Public Library of America

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:51 PM, Andrew Cunningham <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> It is better to refer to BCP-47 instead.
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47
>
> An RFC can be updated, when it is, it recieves a new number. For language
> tagging, the relevant information is split across two RFCs. BCP-47 is a
> permanent IEFT ifentifier referencing the latest versions of the two RFCs
> relating to language tagging.
>
> Andrew
>
> On 2 Jun 2016 9:24 am, "Stuart A. Yeates" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > I recommend reading https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5646 which seems to
> do
> > what you need.
> >
> > cheers
> > stuart
> >
> > --
> > ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:59 AM, Greg Lindahl <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> >
> > > Some of the Internet Archive's library partners are asking us about
> > > language metadata for regional languages that don't have standard
> > > codes.  Is there a standard way of dealing with this situation?
> > >
> > > Overall we use MARC codes https://www.loc.gov/marc/languages/ which
> > > were last updated in 2007. LOC also maintains ISO639-2
> > > https://www.loc.gov/standards/iso639-2/php/code_list.php last updated
> > > in 2014.
> > >
> > > The languages in question are regional languages which are currently
> > > lumped together in both standards. With the recent rise in interest
> > > and funding for regional languages, it's no surprise that some
> > > catalogers want to split these languages out into separate codes.
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > -- greg
> > >
>