Glenn Adams <glenn@stonehand.com> wrote in message <9511031019.AA02999@trubetzkoy.stonehand.com>: > I'd like to improve 1766 to make it more comprehensive. You couldn't > help it that 639 is so limited. So I'm really not faulting 1766. It > seems it is important to recognize its limitations based on 639's limits > and move on from there. The way to do that is to use the registration procedure for language tags defined in RFC 1766. This RFC was never meant to define a comprehensive set of langauge tags itself. > If would be pleased to assist in improving 1766 so it can be a single, > comprehensive language tag standard. Something I also want. The IANA language tag registry may become that comprehensive standard. No revision of 1766 is needed to achieve that. /Olle -- Olle Jarnefors, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm <ojarnef@admin.kth.se>Received on Friday, 3 November 1995 12:09:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 2 February 2023 18:42:56 UTC