Phillips, Addison addison at
Wed Sep 24 20:03:15 CEST 2008

> >
> > 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.

The question is whether that variation would use a different Pinyin transliteration scheme from Tibetan Tibetan. My guess is probably not, but that's, of course, a hypothetical hypothetical. 


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list