LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN
everson at evertype.com
Fri Feb 18 13:06:15 CET 2005
At 07:03 -0800 2005-02-17, Peter Constable wrote:
> >>I have given you process reasons why deciding when a country ID is
> >>or isn't warranted is not scalable.
So... you have given me "process reasons" why deciding when a country
ID is or isn't warranted is not able to be expanded to meet future
I'm not a programmer, and I don't think like one, and I don't live
and work in an environment where this kind of vocabulary use makes
sense or where anyone uses it this way. (I don't know what a
heuristic is, either.)
Sorry, Peter, but you've lost me.
>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
May well be needed? If I understand the RFC, it requires some level
of proof that the entity exists, and I wasn't aware that we were
supposed to be registering aliases of tags for entities.
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages