Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Jun 16 00:24:29 CEST 2003

--On søndag, juni 15, 2003 19:03:34 +0200 Karl Ove Hufthammer 
<karl at huftis.org> wrote:

> Mark Crispin <mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote in
> news:Pine.NXT.4.56.0306150752340.11845 at Ikkoku-Kan.Panda.COM:
>> Harald's suggestion of en-oed sounds good.
> This would conflict with RFC 3066:
>    - All 3-letter subtags are interpreted according to
>      assignments found in ISO 639 part 2, "Codes for the
>      representation of names of languages -- Part 2: Alpha-3
>      code [ISO 639-2]", or assignments subsequently made by the
>      ISO 639 part 2 maintenance agency or governing
>      standardization bodies.

that's the first subtag, not the second.

btw, I think en-oed looks nicer than en-int-oed, since the "-int-" part is 
essentially meaningless, and could be read as conferring some kind of 
official international status on Oxford Press, something I'm sure they have 
no intention of seeking.

I haven't even got a weak preference between en-oed and en-gb-oed.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list