Subject: RE: [Ltru] [psg.com #1096] "nb" versus "no"

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:35:24 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Randy Presuhn

> > From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>

> > 1. 'no' should be deprecated in favor of 'nb'. That is,
> > one should assume 'nb' if 'no' is used.
> >
> > 'no' is is (now) in theory a language group code, but all
> > languages in that group have individual codes (nb and nn);
> > not counting dialects. But effectively, in practice, 'nb'
> > *replaces* 'no' ('nn' is much rarer than 'nb').

In ISO 639-3, nor (the alpha-3 equivalent to no) is considered a
macrolanguage encompassing both nob and nno (equivalents to nb and nn).
In theory, that *might* suggest that in 3066ter that we could recommend
no-nob / no-nno be used. This is a special case, though, in two
respects: the macrolanguage categories pre-exist ISO 639-3, and the
macrolanguage categories have their own alpha-2 IDs. Thus, it seems
reasonably to me that this set of categories might have exceptional
handling.

Peter Constable

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