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

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