Variant subtag proposal: Hgnorsk variety of Norwegian
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Dec 29 05:20:46 CET 2009
Kent Karlsson <kent dot karlsson14 at comhem dot se> wrote:
> Anyway, I think it would be a bad idea to encourage using
> "no-hognorsk". It is still permitted (since the "prefix" data is just
> a recommendation). But I see no reason to use that tag. All data that
> get (re)tagged (assuming that it has been determined to be/contain
> Hgnorsk text) to use the 'hognorsk' variant should use the tag
> 'nn-hognorsk', even if the original tag (if any) was 'no'.
OK, that was the answer I was looking for.
I found it interesting, though, that my question revealed that some
people believe Norwegian data should be only tagged as 'nb' or 'nn',
never as 'no', despite the huge amount of existing 'no' data.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages