L.Gillam at L.Gillam at
Thu Apr 20 11:47:39 CEST 2006


Wikipedia - apparently bigger than the Encyclopedia Brittanica - identifies
the use of "roa" for Jèrriais.
I merely reported that those reading such information might use it.

The issue I was alluding to previously, and which Peter Constable expanded
upon then appears to have retracted but might now want to restate, was 
related to established user behaviour and "splitting" of identifiers. 
If, referring to 3166, users see that GB could be used to encompass 
GG/JE/IM, as per the comment it once had, the combination "fr-GB" seems 
reasonable. Especially given the "fr" fallback. OTOH, the notion of 
"British French" may seem ridiculous to some and "roa", while a bin of 
"other", may be suggested elsewhere and so used. So, as of fairly recently, 
fr-GG and fr-JE might now be used alongside resources identified by roa 
and/or fr-GB. And it could take some effort to untangle any previously 
tagged resources (backward compatibility) based on 
	GB(2) = GB(1) - JE(2) - IM(2) - GG(2) [hence GB(2) <= GB(1)] 
and possibly 
	roa(2) = roa(1) - fr-GG (2) - fr-JE(2) [hence roa(2) <= roa(1)] 
with some unknown value for roa <=> fr-GB.

> All of this, of course, begs the practical question of what language(s) 
is (are) used differently in GG or JE or IM as compared to GB.  We've 
talked about "fr-GG" for Dgèrnésiais and "fr-JE" for Jèrriais, although 
Lee Gillam, at least, thought "roa" might be a better language subtag. 
These would obviously be different from whatever "fr-GB" might mean. 
Other than that, however, there may be less to this controversy than 
meets the eye.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list