Subject: [Ltru] Re: date B = 2005-01-01

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:42:44 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> After the intruduction of several nonsense MO-tags in the 3066
> system I propose to use 2005-01-01 as "date B" and ignore all
> dubious 3066-tags introduced after 2005-01-01 (if they turn out
> to be "redundant" this point is moot).
>
> Further I want to express that I do not trust anybody involved
> in the registrations of MO-languages.

Are you *sure* there is no discernible difference between Chinese as
used in Macao and Chinese as used in other places?  I know I'm not
qualified to say whether there is or isn't.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2005 08:11:08 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:

> Are you *sure* there is no discernible difference between
> Chinese as used in Macao and Chinese as used in other places?

As sure as for it-Latn-SM or fr-Latn-MC, in other words _no_

> I know I'm not qualified to say whether there is or isn't.

The idea is to present facts _for_ a registration.  Or that's
what I thought before these MO-tags, now I think that there's
a problem with the tag review procedure, "registered-language"
tags should not be allowed, i-whatever was better.  Bye, Frank