- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2008 11:22:00 -0400
- To: Leif Halvard Silli <lhs@malform.no>
- Cc: Frank Ellermann <hmdmhdfmhdjmzdtjmzdtzktdkztdjz@gmail.com>, www-international@w3.org
Leif Halvard Silli scripsit: > I am uncertain what the oed (Oxford English Dictionary spelling) tag is > for. OED spelling is different from ordinary en-GB in several ways; it's used in some ISO standards in preference to either en-GB or en-US (or any other). > 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. >From the viewpoint of 639-1, which is primarily that of librarians and bibliographers, having separate codes for nn and nb *is* sensible. Again, it's a matter of adapting a not-quite-suitable standard for IETF language tagging rather than taking on the immense work and resulting flame wars from doing our own. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan The present impossibility of giving a scientific explanation is no proof that there is no scientific explanation. The unexplained is not to be identified with the unexplainable, and the strange and extraordinary nature of a fact is not a justification for attributing it to powers above nature. --The Catholic Encyclopedia, s.v. "telepathy" (1913)
Received on Saturday, 26 April 2008 15:22:39 UTC