Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Sun Jun 15 16:24:03 CEST 2003

At 17:21 -0700 2003-06-14, Mark Crispin wrote:

>It seems that the OED is *not* the definitive reference of British
>English; if it was then there would be no reason for the separate entry.
>Furthermore, OED English deviates substantially from modern British
>English; in some respects American or Canadian English is closer.

Eh? OED orthography differs from "modern British" only in its 
preference of -ize to -ise for words using that Greek suffix.

>If we take the position that the OED defines an ideal form of the English
>language, separate from different national dialects, then I consider it
>wrong to label it as GB.

The reason the tag is required is to specify Oxford orthography, as 
distinct from en-US and en-GB.

I prefer Oxford spelling to "British" spelling, and I prefer 
"British" spelling to Webster's reformed orthography.
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list