Adding code equivalents
randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Mon Dec 14 06:24:23 CET 2009
> From: "Michael(tm) Smith" <mike at w3.org>
> To: "Mark Davis ☕" <mark at macchiato.com>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> 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