Harald Tveit Alvestrand harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Jun 19 09:10:37 CEST 2003

--On onsdag, juni 18, 2003 11:34:16 -0700 Mark Crispin 
<mrc at CAC.Washington.EDU> wrote:

> On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, John Cowan wrote:
>> I think all of en-0oed, en-0ed, and en-latn-oed are hideous compared to
>> en-gb-oed.  In this usage, "oed" is a marker for a sub-orthography of
>> gb orthography, which is essentially what it is.
> IMHO, the name should depend upon how OED is to be registered and
> treated.
> If OED is to be considered as a sub-orthography of GB orthography
> ("British spelling with -ize instead of -ise"), then en-gb-oed is probably
> the right thing.
> If, on the other hand, OED is to be considered as an "ideal" form of
> English language orthography, then I object to GB appearing in the name.
> Whichever choice is taken, the description in the registration should
> match the choice.
> I'm finding myself leaning more towards en-gb-oed, simply because the
> concept of "ideal English" looks like it opens up ratholes that none of us
> are truly prepared to enter.

I find this a compelling argument for en-gb-oed.

If anyone could look at en-oed and imagine that the language tag reviewing 
community is taking a position on what the ideal kind of English is, I am 
superbly willing to occasionally type 3 extra characters to disabuse them 
of the notion.

Let's register en-gb-oed and be done with it.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list