Re: 2 many language tags for Norwegian

Leif Halvard Silli scripsit:

> I am uncertain what the oed (Oxford English Dictionary spelling) tag is 
> for.

It represents the spelling conventions used in that dictionary, which
are similar to but not identical with the usual en-GB conventions.
This matters because it's an extremely important dictionary.  Some but
not all international standards use en-GB-oed spelling.

> I can set *my* browser to permit nb, nn and no. But not any browser. Not 
> on OS X, at least. On OS X, the browser (Safari/Webkit and those that 
> interact with the system - Camino/Opera) only sends out one accept 
> language header. 

That's clearly a quality of implementation issue with those browsers,
not with the standards.

> Adding more tags would be bad, you said. I wish they had had the wisdom 
> to say so when they proposed nb and nn, as we allready had no-nyn and 
> no-bok.

Again, it's a matter of slightly misaligned purposes.  For 639-1 alone,
it made sense to have separate tags, and BCP 47 requires that IETF-specific
hacks be deprecated in favor of standard forms.

-- 
Clear?  Huh!  Why a four-year-old child         John Cowan
could understand this report.  Run out          cowan@ccil.org
and find me a four-year-old child.  I           http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
can't make head or tail out of it.
        --Rufus T. Firefly on government reports