Re: 2 many language tags for Norwegian

Leif Halvard Silli scripsit:

> >Written gsw is relatively rare, mostly belles lettres.  The great bulk
> >of Swiss web pages in German use de with the CH orthography.
> 
> Which doesn't take away my point, if I moderate myself to say that 
> 'de-gsw' would have been fine. However, again, they can just tag their 
> files in Apache as 'file.gsw.de' to be certain that tagging them as .gsw 
> does not lead to people not getting the files.

I doubt it's much of a problem: people are unlikely to use language
negotiation to choose between gsw and de versions of pages.

> I still think that it would be fine with a "MacroFrisian-SubFrisian" 
> mapping. It did not need to be obligatory - one could let authors choose 
> between useing "SubFrisian" as an independent tag and mapping it to 
> "MacroFrisian".

The various languages called "Frisian" simply don't meet the criteria
applicable to macrolanguages, any more than English and Low Saxon do,
despite the undisputed facts of history.

> That was what Sweden did to the territories bordering to the Copenhagen 
> region. ;-) (The Skåne county.) Plus Norway has not stopped to mourn the 
> loss of Härjedalen and Jämtland. :-D

Also known as Øst-Trøndelag. :-)

> True. Though the the Skåne district of Sweden shares some Danish aspects 
> still. 

I agree, although there are Swedes who are at pains to deny it, and claim
that Scanian is southern Swedish, not eastern Danish in linguistic character.

-- 
Man has no body distinct from his soul,                 John Cowan
for that called body is a portion of the soul           cowan@ccil.org
discerned by the five senses,                           http://www.ccil.org
the chief inlets of the soul in this age.  --William Blake