Scottish English (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM)

[John Cowan]

Michael Everson scripsit:

> What are the advantages/disadvantages/implications for:
> 
> en-scottish
> en-scotland

Scotland is a country, with a Parliament and an Executive even, though it
is not fully independent.  It is not inconceivable that these institutions
might legislate a standard form of English for their country, since it
is known to differ systematically from the forms used elsewhere.

Therefore, it is rational for us, within the limitations of our
self-imposed rules, to treat it as near to an ISO 3166 country as
possible.  Hence we should register and use "en-scotland", English
as it is spoken in Scotland, analogous to en-us, en-ca, en-ie, etc.
If there is in future a demand for en-england, en-wales, or en-nireland,
we can deal with it when the time comes.

There is nothing actually wrong with en-scottish, but en-scotland is the
superior choice.  I believe this is an important decision on our part,
for it will tend to set a precedent.  We may one day need to register
Quebecker French (as distinct from Acadian French and other Canadian
Frenches), for example, and if so we should use the variant subtag
"quebec".

A remaining matter is whether we should, by setting the Prefix field
appropriately, encourage people to use en-uk-scotland rather than simply
en-scotland.  My tentative opinion is that we should not, but I am willing
to be convinced otherwise.  En-uk-scotland is wordier, of course; the
argument for it is that it has better fallback.  In any case, people
will be free to do either; this is a matter of SHOULD rather than MUST.

-- 
John Cowan      http://www.ccil.org/~cowan      cowan at ccil.org
Be yourself.  Especially do not feign a working knowledge of RDF where
no such knowledge exists.  Neither be cynical about RELAX NG; for in
the face of all aridity and disenchantment in the world of markup,
James Clark is as perennial as the grass.  --DeXiderata, Sean McGrath