prosfilaes at gmail.com
Wed Sep 24 19:42:14 CEST 2008
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:21 PM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Randy Presuhn scripsit:
>> Now, a question. Consider bo-Latn-TW-pinyin. Would that be Tibetan
>> as used in Tiawan in an orthography that looks something like Hanyu Pinyin,
>> or Tibetan in an orthography that looks something like Tongyong pinyin?
> Who cares? It is complete bollocks in either case, as much so as nv-DK or tlh-AQ.
km-US and tr-DE make sense; even if bo-TW doesn't exist today, it
doesn't seem that unlikely a combination to appear in the future.
More information about the Ietf-languages