Lower Saxon as a group

[CE Whitehead]

John, thanks for your reply on this; so all Germanic languages have codes now in RFC 4645? 

 

So [gme], [gmq], [gmw] are codes for indicating several languages?  What happend to [gem], which I was told was to indicate languages without codes (for example, [sxu] did not have a code till this update)?

 

I agree with John that the tree is not very good for the Germanic languages though I am not the expert on these [some pronunciations are shared between North Germanic, Dutch, and English, & I find the families as set up by the tree a bit confusing]; but we don't need the tree so much at ietf; just the codes--& if the families/codes are not correct then this is not dealt with here is it anyway?

 

 

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com 
Sun Feb 22 23:28:30 CET 2009 

> Hi, John, Anthony, thanks for the info: my question is are these new Germanic codes ([gem], [gm], [gmq]) still
Should be [gme], [gmw], [gmq]
(either I typed too quickly or my email got butchered; sorry; I've tried twice to type these codes correctly; this is my third try)

 

--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar at hotmail.com


> used in the way [gem] is used, that is, to indicate languages not already assigned codes? 

 






-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090223/928d273a/attachment-0001.htm