<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR><BR>I agree that de is best probably for the purposes at hand--but it might be possible to have two prefixes, right?<BR> <BR>(Thanks to Thomas for sharing his research on this dialect.)<BR> <BR>Which will be easier ultimately to train, search engines or content developers I could not guess.<BR> <BR>I personally find that some languages elude exact classification, destroy neat classification schemes, but I really do not work enough in this field at all to say (mainly I've looked at historical forms of English and French and related, and managed to scan a few texts in Norse and Old Norse though of course I do not read anything Scandinavian at all . . . ; I've looked at a few modern languages, but I am sure that anyone who helps build search engines sees many more).<BR><BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR>> From: nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de<BR>> Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2008 12:02:08 +0100<BR>> Subject: Re: Principles of Operation (was LANGUAGE SUBTAG REQUESTFORMErzgebirgisch)<BR>><BR>> <BR>> Clearly using "ang" (or "sxu") for a research project showing<BR>> that this is actually wrong would be odd. OTOH if it is meant<BR>> to help all speakers of the dialect that their Web content is<BR>> "supported" in various ways, then using less obscure prefixes<BR>> "en" (or "de") is better.<BR>> <BR>> Frank<BR>> <BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Ietf-languages mailing list<BR>> Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no<BR>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages<BR><BR><BR></body>
</html>