en-GB-oxford LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jun 16 00:24:29 CEST 2003
--On søndag, juni 15, 2003 19:03:34 +0200 Karl Ove Hufthammer
<karl at huftis.org> wrote:
> Mark Crispin <mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
> news:Pine.NXT.4.56.0306150752340.11845 at Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM:
>> Harald's suggestion of en-oed sounds good.
> This would conflict with RFC 3066:
> - All 3-letter subtags are interpreted according to
> assignments found in ISO 639 part 2, "Codes for the
> representation of names of languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3
> code [ISO 639-2]", or assignments subsequently made by the
> ISO 639 part 2 maintenance agency or governing
> standardization bodies.
that's the first subtag, not the second.
btw, I think en-oed looks nicer than en-int-oed, since the "-int-" part is
essentially meaningless, and could be read as conferring some kind of
official international status on Oxford Press, something I'm sure they have
no intention of seeking.
I haven't even got a weak preference between en-oed and en-gb-oed.
More information about the Ietf-languages