Kent Karlsson kentk at
Fri Apr 21 11:08:55 CEST 2006

Debbie Garside wrote:
> With regard to sv-SE and sv-AX, it was my understanding (through
> conversations with colleagues in Stockholm) that it is generally considered
> that sv-AX is a "purer" form of Swedish and this could perhaps indicate
> difference between them but perhaps that is spoken rather than written;
I am
> sure you know better than I.

sv-SE (official) and sv-AX are so close that I cannot tell the difference.
There's not even a difference in pronunciation. Dialects of sv-SE vary
*MUCH* more. sv-FI (not -AX) is sometimes considered "purer" (and has a
very particular dialectal pronunciation), but only in the sense that it
is more old-fashioned. Just like Icelandic is sometimes considered
a "purer" form of Nordic/Scandinavian languages, but only for its (very
much more) old-fashioned nature.

John Cowan wrote:
> Fortunately, the AX-FI split happened before our official
> event horizon (Date B), and there was never anything, AFAIK,
> saying that FI included AX.

The split happened long after RFC 3066 became official.
(Not sure what "date B" is, and you don't give an actual date.)

Doug Ewell wrote:
> > I was kind of hoping this suggestion would just go away...
> I hope that no serious suggestion on this list will ever "just go away."
> Every suggestion that is made in good faith and with an eye toward
> improving the usability of language tags should always be considered and
> discussed publicly.  We owe it not only to the proponent, but also to
> the users who may be affected.

I had just hoped that I would not have to argue much about it myself...

		/kent k

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list