- From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
- Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 12:31:54 -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.
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
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2008 16:32:28 UTC