I agree entirely with what Mark Davis has written here. 

On 26 Sep 2013, at 03:08, Mark Davis ☕ <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> This is a long and convoluted thread, but I have a couple of brief comments.
> 
> 1. It is a terrible idea to have a code for Montenegrin. Any in-depth discussion with people from that area of the world reveals that the differences between Serbian and Montenegrin are on the order of dialect differences, not languages. The differences are comparable to those you see across English or Spanish, and no more different than one encounters between different parts of Serbia itself.
> 
> Secondly, there is already a well-recognized language subtag (BCP47) for Montenegrin: sr-ME. Introducing an equivalent to that will simply bring another opportunity for software breakage, nothing more. So in the interests of stability, no new code for Montenegrin should be added. (This is also a dangerous path for the committee to follow; departing from the pragmatic principles that have governed the assignment codes—especially those affecting stability—will cause downstream clients to find other solutions.)
> 
> 2. While the formal title is "Codes for the representation of names of languages", that is, and always has been, recognized as a misnomer. It is and always has been codes for languages, not their names. (Otherwise, each alternate name for each language would have required a different code, which has never been the case.)
> 
> 2. The visual association between a three letter code and a language is of little importance. These codes are simply internal identifiers. While it is useful to try to maintain some sort of association, it is in the end, not particularly significant.
> 
> Mark

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/