Request: Language Code "de-DE-1996"

Martin Duerst
Wed, 24 Apr 2002 23:23:05 +0900

I have to say that what I know about the linguistic
situation (which I guess is more than either Michael
or Peter) doesn't suggest any particular preference
for either having the year or the country first, and
because things such as de-DE,... are already firmly
established, I would strongly prefer to stay with the
original proposal of having the country in the position
that is familiar to a lot of people. So I would indeed
say NO to Peter's proposal.

Regards,   Martin.

At 13:15 02/04/24 +0100, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 17:01 -0500 2002-04-23, wrote:
>>My assumption: I gather from what you're saying, then, that people probably
>>wouldn't want to tag specifically orthography distinctions that are based
>>on country (i.e. orthography but not vocabulary), but they would want to
>>distinguish spellings according to the 1901 and 1996 conventions, and they
>>would want to distinguish data sets that use country-specific vocabulary
>>(and which will also follow either the 1901 or 1996 conventions). If that
>>is the case, then it would seem to me that what we need are
>>where de-1901 and de-1996 tell us what spellings are used, but don't
>>distinguish with regard to vocabulary, and where de-1901-xx and de-1996-xx
>>distinguish both vocabulary and spelling.
>I agree with Peter, and I find that RFC 3066 permits this. Subtags can be 
>alphabetic or numeric.
>Shall we proceed? Does anyone say NO?
>Michael Everson *** Everson Typography ***
>Ietf-languages mailing list