Subject: RE: [Ltru] e-GB-scouse (was: Matching metrics)

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 09:25:08 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On
> Behalf Of Frank Ellermann

> If that's the case we just found another problem of squeezing
> four dimensions into one:  "scouse" would need a "recommended
> prefix" en-GB (implicitly en-*-GB), not only en.

How so? If "GB" doesn't add any useful qualification then it's redundant
and unnecessary -- just as we wouldn't expect people to add "Latn" to
en-GB.

Peter Constable

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 20:29:04 +0200

Peter Constable wrote:

>> "scouse" would need a "recommended prefix" en-GB
>> (implicitly en-*-GB), not only en.

> How so? If "GB" doesn't add any useful qualification then
> it's redundant and unnecessary

Point.  But I came from the other direction trying tags like
en-US-scouse until John and Mark told me to stop it because
it's nonsense, en-scouse is implicitly always en-GB-scouse.

Same problem as with the scripts if you don't know it.  For
me the GB in en-GB-scouse was not redundant (until John and
Mark explained it), I'd like to have any implied info in the
registry - not so important for scouse, but for the scripts.

                            Bye, Frank