Swiss german, spoken

[Debbie Garside]

But for archival and retrieval processes we MAY wish to make a distinction.
Remember, there are an awful lot of end users out there using 3066.

Thought of day... Think literally... think laterally... and ye shall have a
fuller picture :-)



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> Sent: 12 June 2005 00:08
> To: 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> Subject: Re: Swiss german, spoken
> 
> At 16:01 -0700 2005-06-11, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> >Hi -
> >
> >>  From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>
> >>  To: "'Michael Everson'" <everson at evertype.com>; "'IETF Languages
> >>Discussion'" <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> >>  Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 3:47 PM
> >>  Subject: RE: Swiss german, spoken
> >>
> >>IMHO Requests for specifically "Written" tags and "Spoken" tags will
> >>  increase in the future and it may be a wise thing to discuss this
> sooner
> >>  rather than later. This is currently catered for within the proposed
> 639-6;
> >>  if accepted 3066bis (or ter) will (I presume) follow suit.
> >...
> >
> >If you would like to ensure that the language tag registry has mechanisms
> >to specifically support this distinction, please take your concern
> >to the ltru at ietf.org
> >mailing list, preferably with the specific text you'd like to add or
> change.
> >The WG is very close to being ready for WG last call on the registry
> draft,
> >so delay would not be good.
> 
> Oh, I'd really like to say "bollocks" to this notion of "spoken" vs
> "written". A language is a language. EVERY language can be written.
> Representation of dialect forms of written language is not a question
> of written/unwritten.
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages