!!!!! Re: What RFC 3066 says !!!!!
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Wed May 28 14:04:51 CEST 2003
John Clews scripsit:
> >>>> Clearly most of the examples are similar, though a sign
> language appears as an example in RFC 3066, and a script
> example is removed from RFC 1766 in effect.
IIRC we removed this example from 3066 because 15924 was still cooking,
and we didn't want to put in examples that had bogus script tags.
> However, despite their being no example, it is clear that
> (a) second subtags representing scripts are still permissible, and
> (b) there is nothing that prevents script preceding country.
Indeed. And as for the argument that country should precede script,
it *is* self-evidently wrong. :-)
John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht.
More information about the Ietf-languages