> > > Leif Halvard Silli scripsit: > > > >> +1 one for "Type: macrolanguage" and "Type: language collection". > >> > >> Being explicist is good. For example, the "no" code cannot be > used > >> for spell-checking unless you assume that it means either "nn" > or > >> "nb". > > > > The same is true of "en" and "de". > > > You mean that you cannot use "en" to spellcheck "de" unless you > assume that "en" means "de". No: he means that you cannot spellcheck "en" until you know if it is "en-US", "en-GB", "en-CA", etc. Similarly, there are German differences. > > However, with 'no' there is a very likely risk that someone thinks > that 'no' is spesific enough. And that, or similar risks, exist > for all macrolanguages. That or similar risks exist for many, many languages. It is not at all inherent to macrolanguages. It isn't even necessarily a feature of macrolanguages. > > The same is not true of "en" and "de". Which of these is spelled correctly: jail, gaol? How about: tire, tyre? Or: color, colour? 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.