The limit of language codes

L.Gillam at surrey.ac.uk L.Gillam at surrey.ac.uk
Tue Feb 20 16:06:27 CET 2007


According to Wikipedia, you have to blame Janet for it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.gb).

UK is exceptionally reserved, so providing you can accept a two letter denotation (GB) as synonymous with another two letter denotation (UK), with both standing for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", and correcting others who make the assumption outside the scope of 3166 that GB is limited to Great Britain, we should all be safe in our beds.

Assumptions have unfortunate children.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no]On Behalf Of Marion Gunn
> Sent: 20 February 2007 14:16
> To: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: The limit of language codes
> 
> 
> When construction work on ISO 3166 first began, no thought was given  
> to the matching of territories to languages for tagging 
> purposes, but  
> the development of the web has since given us the more suitable ISO  
> code uk (as used in UK e-mail addresses) it makes more sense to fix  
> that old (gb) error by matching the correct, newer (uk) code to such  
> languages codes as it happens to fit.
> mg
> 
> On 20 Feb 2007, at 13:49, scríobh Debbie Garside:
> > ...
> > Nobody that I know in the UK ever refers to GB but I think we have  
> > to accept
> > the difficulties and precedents involved here and move on.
> 
> - -
> Marion Gunn * EGTeo (Estab.1991)
> 27 Páirc an Fhéithlinn, Baile an
> Bhóthair, Co. Átha Cliath, Éire.
> * mgunn at egt.ie * eamonn at egt.ie *
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list