Re: [geolang-comment] National and official languages (was: Quo vadis,GeoLang?)

[John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>]

Lars Marius Garshol wrote:


> That's very good. I've felt it was a weakness of RFC 3066 that many
> people were using codes of this form which were not in the registry.
> This would solve that problem.


I think until now nobody has had a candidate list of what made
sense to register short of a full cross-product, which is
absurd (Byelorussian as spoken in Bulgaria?).

Murray, I'm happy to send you the list for processing, but
I want someone else to check it over for *sensibleness* first, for
both sins of omission and of commission, particularly the former.
I've asked Michael Everson (RFC 3066 language reviewer) to
do so, but he's probably swamped (as who is not?).

Anyone have some free time to help?

  

-- 
John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>     http://www.reutershealth.com
I amar prestar aen, han mathon ne nen,    http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
han mathon ne chae, a han noston ne 'wilith.  --Galadriel, _LOTR:FOTR_