> > Even so, the point I was making remains valid: "no-nb" or "no-nob" or > "no-nn" or "no-nno" would not be compatible with existing usage. > The tags "no-nb" and "no-nn" (in which 'nb' and 'nn' represent languages and not regions) cannot be made legal without breaking many things. Like compatibility with ISO 3166-1, for example. This has *always* been true, even in RFC 1766 or RFC 3066. The tags "no-nno" and "no-nob" could be made legal if we were to restore extlang. However, at no point has this been contemplated because 'nb' and 'nn' are already valid primary language subtags and we have a pretty firm policy of not making synonyms. This would introduce Yet Another Way to Tag Norwegian, which is kind of a mess, given that: The tags "no-bok" and "no-nyn" are grandfathered (and deprecated, but still valid), since they were registered under RFC 1766 and later ISO 639-1 created 'nb' and 'nn', replacing them. Macrolanguage information is "useful" here, in that it allows one to determine that 'nb' and 'nn' are each related to 'no', as many systems continued to use 'no', blithely ignoring the Bokmal/Nynorsk divide. Addison _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.