Encoding scripts in tags: evil or just unpleasant?

KeldJørnSimonsen keld at dkuug.dk
Fri May 23 22:38:10 CEST 2003

On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 07:21:23AM -0700, Mark Davis wrote:
> It appears that the main issue is the 'default'. I really find it very
> hard to understand Michael's objections.
> 1. RFD 3066 provides for differences in written form, and script is a
> huge difference; far, far more different than between British and
> American spelling, or between German pre 1996 and post.
> 2. Michael keeps talking about duplicate encodings, but as many people
> have pointed out, they are not duplicates. We have very much an
> analogous situation now:
> en means any English
> en-US means English as used in the US
> en-CA means English as used in Canada
> etc.

As I see it you are trying to redefine the meaning of the serbian
language tag, from meaning "serbian (as costumarly written in the cyrillic
script)", to "serbian (as written in any script)". Changing the meaning
of registered entities is a no-no in normal registration administration.

My proposed way out of this is to have associated scripts with a few
language identifiers, such as cyrl with serbian.

Best regards

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list