No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?

Shawn Steele Shawn.Steele at
Wed Mar 25 16:15:14 CET 2015

“en” in “oxendict” is a little redundant.  Since its applied to the beginning of the anyway.

From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 7:49 AM
To: Mark Davis ☕️; Doug Ewell
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: No consensus on en-GB-oed replacement?

Since #1 has more support on list so far, why not file a request for that? The subtag is often one of the things we change during the two weeks of review (if it should turn out that anyone objects to the one proposed).

(Sent from my Fire HDX)

On March 25, 2015, at 7:43 AM, Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at<mailto:mark at>> wrote:
Either 1 or 2 are far better than 3.


— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 10:47 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at<mailto:doug at>> wrote:
With no additional discussion for over a week on which of these three
courses is best to take with "en-GB-oed":

1) deprecate and create "en-oxendict"
2) deprecate and create "en-oxford" (Addison, March 7)
3) leave it alone (John, March 7)

I'm assuming there really isn't enough consensus to post any forms to
the list at all. I will post forms for (1) or (2) if Michael directs me
to do so.

The three forms I posted on March 11 are still up for review through
next Wednesday, March 25, after which either Michael will forward them
to IANA or he will not, as he decides.

Doug Ewell | | Thornton, CO ����
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at<mailto:Ietf-languages at>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list