No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?

[Peter Constable]

>Since Michael was the original registrant, he's entitled to extra consideration here. I support 
>the position that, since he does not agree with other suggestions for the subtag form, we let 
>the current proposal stand, and, assuming he's amenable to this registration, let it go 
>forward.

Works for me. I don't recall now what is in the current proposal, but I'm guessing whatever it was that it fit the pattern o*e*d*, and I can live with anything that fits that pattern (or even o*d*) and satisfies the length requirements.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2015 3:04 PM
To: cowan at ccil.org; "Mark Davis ☕️"
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: RE: No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?

> 
> > I would rather take any of the suggestions so far (even "oxendict") 
> > rather than leave it as is, where it is (to us) useless.
> 
> By "us" you mean Google, and it is useless to you only because you 
> have arbitrarily decided not to support any irregular tags.
> 

I don't think the grandfathered tag is "useless". But it is certainly less useful than a variant subtag, since it cannot be used generatively.

Regarding the form that the subtag takes, I agree with others that "oxendict" is not particularly attractive. That's an aesthetic opinion and not a technical objection. 

Since Michael was the original registrant, he's entitled to extra consideration here. I support the position that, since he does not agree with other suggestions for the subtag form, we let the current proposal stand, and, assuming he's amenable to this registration, let it go forward.

Addison
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages