No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?

Michael Everson everson at
Wed Apr 1 09:41:38 CEST 2015

On 1 Apr 2015, at 08:15, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:34 PM, <cowan at> wrote:
> By "us" you mean Google, and it is useless to you only because you have 
> arbitrarily decided not to support any irregular tags.
> ​No, I mean Unicode (CLDR). And our decision was not "arbitrary”.

Splendid. Would you like to share with us the non-arbitrary, considered decisions not to support a tiny handful of irregular tags which existed? I mean, if you were supporting the BCP, they’d’ve just been there, so an explicit suggestion “Hey, let’s not support irregular tags” must’ve been mooted by somebody. By whom? Who seconded it? Was there a vote? I’m sure we’re all eager to learn about this. 

> Any more conclusions you want to jump to, as long as you are at it?

Needless snarkiness doesn’t make this work more pleasant.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list