cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Fri May 30 09:59:59 CEST 2003
Doug Ewell scripsit:
> For example, they should know that "ba" and "bal" and "ban" (etc.) are
> valid RFC 3066 tags, but not "bad" or "bag" (or "bak", which is valid
> ISO 639-2 but superseded by "ba").
> Can an application really "support" or "adhere to" RFC 3066 while only
> recognizing one or two tags?
I'm not sure if this is jest or earnest, or some slippery ground between.
(Remembering the millennia-old chestnut about boys and frogs.)
Or in en-internet, "Are you trolling me?"
Anyhow, I would certainly think it bad design (because not robust)
to complain about invalid tags that I don't understand. If I were
writing a multilingual spelling checker with materials to hand, it
would understand en-us, en-gb, and de-*, and reject anything else,
whether valid nv or invalid xxx.
I suggest you call for help, John Cowan
or learn the difficult art of mud-breathing. jcowan at reutershealth.com
--Great-Souled Sam http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the Ietf-languages