LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN
petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Feb 17 16:03:35 CET 2005
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> >I have given you process reasons why deciding when a country ID is
> >or isn't warranted is not scalable.
> I don't know what "scalable" means.
1. climbable: able to be climbed up or over
2. variable: used to describe computer graphics fonts generated by an algorithm that permits the size to vary proportionately over a wide range
3. expandable: used to describe a computer, component, or network that can be expanded to meet future needs
Microsoft® Encarta® Premium Suite 2004. © 1993-2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
> And apparently I do not understand what "process reasons" are.
Did you read what I wrote explaining this Feb 3?
> >I have also given you reasons with scenarios why country IDs may be
> >needed even if descriptively there are not known to be linguistic
> >differences between what is spoken/written in country X vs. country
> Yes, but language tags tag languages, and are not portmanteaux for
> the whole locale suite.
I gave you an explanation on Feb 12 of why something like mn-Mong-MN vs. mn-Mong-CN or fr-CI vs. fr-GH may well be needed by a user AS LANGUAGE TAGS, NOT AS LOCALE IDs. ISO 639-1, ISO 639-2 and RFC 3066 all make reference to combining country IDs with language IDs, without limitation on combinations, and they are not discussing locales.
> >Admittedly, I cannot give you a scenario in which iu-Cans-CA might be
> >needed since I am only aware of it being used in one country. But that
> >is the sole exception among all of the tags for which I submitted
> >registration forms.
> There is a difference between Mongolian written in Mongolian script
> in China and Mongolian written in Mongolian script in Mongolia? What
> is the difference?
Please go back and read the explanation I gave on Feb 12.
More information about the Ietf-languages