en-GB-oxford LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM
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?
>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