!!!!! Re: What RFC 3066 says !!!!!
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Thu May 29 10:36:39 CEST 2003
--On onsdag, mai 28, 2003 13:04:51 -0400 John Cowan
<jcowan at reutershealth.com> wrote:
> 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.
I remember what went through my head as I was typing this....
we had decided that the examples were better written using registered tags
rather than tags invented for the purpose, and I was looking at the Azeri
example and saying to myself "hmmm - we don't have any registered script
tags. This example must go....."
The question of what info is properly encoded in tags has been debated
since roughly forever, though, so I will not guarantee that there was
anything like consensus that there were no other reasons to delete it.
More information about the Ietf-languages