Adding code equivalents

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at
Mon Dec 14 06:24:23 CET 2009

Hi -

> From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike at>
> To: "Mark Davis ☕" <mark at>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at>
> Sent: Sunday, December 13, 2009 8:44 PM
> Subject: Re: Adding code equivalents
> Was "eng" ever valid?

No.  This is a case of trying to correct for a
class of systematic errors that might be committed by
someone attempting to implement the BCP without actually
reading it or making use of the registry. - Sort of a
"DWIM" heuristic.  Beyond the question of whether it
makes sense to standardize such things (I'm convinced
it does not) whether such a heuristic is actually useful
or counter-productive would be open to debate.  If someone
who had actually read the BCP entered "eng-840", I'd suspect
that it was a typographical error, and that neither "eng"
nor "840" was actually intended.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list