Martin Duerst duerst at
Thu Apr 10 15:57:08 CEST 2003

At 12:57 03/04/10 -0500, Peter_Constable at wrote:

>My only reservation would be with those proposed tags that have both
>country and script elements: I don't think we ever reached consensus
>regarding which order they should go in.

An even more general concern: Is there anything in az-latn-az that
is different from az-latn (and same for Cyrillic)? In other words,
do we need az-latn-az (and similar for uz and sp) at all?

>I can't recall now if Peter Edberg might have suggested this, but I'm
>wondering about having country ID after a script ID only when the country
>ID is specifically there to distinguish between spelling conventions. Thus,
>if the "AZ" in "az-Latn-AZ" were specifically intended to distinguish
>spelling used in Azerbaijan vs. spelling used elsewhere, that would be OK.
>But, if the distinction is not spelling but only vocab (or other such
>sub-language differences), then use "az-AZ-Latn". If we approach it that
>way, then I'm guessing we'd have "zh-HK-Hans"|"zh-HK-Hant" rather than

Are you saying that if the distinction is spelling and vocabulary,...,
then the country should be at the end, but not if spelling is not an
issue? This sounds weird.

Also, note that there are quite a few vocabulary differences between
simplified and traditional Chinese, although I'm not sure that all of
them are visible in the HK variants.

Regards,   Martin.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list