No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?
doug at ewellic.org
Wed Apr 1 15:34:44 CEST 2015
Mark Davis 🍵 wrote:
> APIs and specifications for using language tags are needlessly
> complicated by the handful of irregulars that cannot be recast in the
> canonical form. If they were a large, important set, it might have
> been worth having special syntax for, and making special allowances in
> all the mechanisms that use them, but only a handful of non-deprecated
> irregulars were not given alternate canonical forms with regular
Then I continue to wish you had not supported the path we took back in
2008 of adding the irregulars to the ABNF and further explaining the use
and validity of irregular tags in the RFC 5646 text.
As in Unicode, promulgation of rules and entities for the purpose of
deprecating or ignoring them later does no one any good.
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
More information about the Ietf-languages