Encoding scripts in tags: evil or just unpleasant?

John Cowan cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Thu May 22 22:26:46 CEST 2003

Michael Everson scripsit:

> Serbian, Croatian, and Bosnian are, linguistically speaking, closely 
> related dialects of the same language. We've got three codes for them 
> now, and Bosnian was totally political, and now how many more do you 
> want? Let's say they can ALL be written in two scripts. Shall we add 
> six more codes to the three we already have?

No.  Croatian, meaning by that the kind of Serbo-Croatian they speak in
Croatia (ijekavian), is definitely only written in the Latin alphabet.

> Wrong? Possibly. But I want to know that everybody think this RFC is 
> for precisely this thing because I am not sure of that.

Well, I started out in your position and have now moved to approving of
Peter's productive langage-script-country model (where "country" is a
proxy for spelling system, basically).

I think the problem is now well enough understood since the publication
of Peter's papers that we can move past the minimalist position of 1766/3066
to something more detailed.

A rabbi whose congregation doesn't want         John Cowan
to drive him out of town isn't a rabbi,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and a rabbi who lets them do it                 jcowan at reutershealth.com
isn't a man.    --Jewish saying                 http://www.reutershealth.com

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list