Why not? [Re: [Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]
John Cowan
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Thu Apr 10 16:06:51 CEST 2003
Jon Hanna scripsit:
> Even "en-IE-Latn" would at least seems somewhat more natural, (but that of
> course would have the problem of being valid in the current RFC3066, and one
> might assume it was a subdialect of Hiberno-English).
The forms "en-ie-latn" and "en-latn-ie" *are* valid in RFC 3066; they just
aren't preregistered, so you have to convince Michael Everson that they are
sensible.
But again, a barrier of script is much larger than a barrier of national
variation. I have no trouble with U.K. English, say, but I would be quite
helpless confronted with English in Greek or Cyrillic (I would have to
decode them, not read them).
--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: jcowan at reutershealth.com
That thou wast born with. http://www.reutershealth.com
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list