Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Tue Jun 17 13:04:31 CEST 2003

At 22:45 -0700 2003-06-16, Doug Ewell wrote:

>  > So. en-GB-oxed? en-GB-oxon? en-GB-oxfd? en-GB-oed?
>>  en-GB-oxfordspelling?
>I still like -oed.  To me -oxon and -oxfd still refer to a physical
>place, which in my mind is not what the proposed tag was all about.  If
>we decide to make something out of the "four characters = script or
>orthography" coincidence, that might constrain our choices a bit.  If
>the subtag must be four letters, we could do worse than -oxed.

It needn't be four letters but for Jon's suggestion.

>The -gb- part is starting to bother me, though.  How Oxford spelling
>(en-gb-oed_or_whatever) could be considered more tightly bound to GB
>than Scouse (en-scouse; note no -gb-) escapes me.

It is essentially British spelling, that is, it is unsullied by 
Webster's reforms, though it differs with regard to a very productive 
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list