Script codes in RFC 3066

Martin Duerst duerst at
Wed Apr 9 15:11:57 CEST 2003

At 13:38 03/04/09 -0400, John Cowan wrote:
>Peter_Constable at scripsit:
> > I hear this said, but when I think about the mechanism utilised by
> > RFC3066's language-range and HTTP's accept-language, I suspect that
> > implementations will not be distinguishing situations in which inferring a
> > hierarchy is appropriate from situations in which the tags should only be
> > [I]t has been suggested that Martha's
> > Vineyard sign could be distinguished from ASL by an additional subtag,
> > sgn-US-mvinyrd (or whatever) versus sgn-US,
>IIRC, Michael is proposing sgn-us-ma, which is legitimate since MV is part
>of Massachusetts, and sgn-us-sd for Plains Indian SL, which strikes me as
>more doubtful, since it was used well outside South Dakota.

I don't understand your logic here. Martha's Vineyard is a very small
part of Massachusetts.

Michael's logic is "Pick the next best state code you can put your
hands on.". I don't think it's a good idea, but it is at least
consistent. In my eyes, using sgn-us-plains and sgn-us-Vineyard
or some such would be much better.

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list