No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?

[Doug Ewell]

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
> syntax.

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 🇺🇸