Mark Crispin mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU
Wed Jun 18 12:34:16 CEST 2003

On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, John Cowan wrote:
> I think all of en-0oed, en-0ed, and en-latn-oed are hideous compared to
> en-gb-oed.  In this usage, "oed" is a marker for a sub-orthography of
> gb orthography, which is essentially what it is.

IMHO, the name should depend upon how OED is to be registered and

If OED is to be considered as a sub-orthography of GB orthography
("British spelling with -ize instead of -ise"), then en-gb-oed is probably
the right thing.

If, on the other hand, OED is to be considered as an "ideal" form of
English language orthography, then I object to GB appearing in the name.

Whichever choice is taken, the description in the registration should
match the choice.

I'm finding myself leaning more towards en-gb-oed, simply because the
concept of "ideal English" looks like it opens up ratholes that none of us
are truly prepared to enter.

-- Mark --

Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list