don't worry, current and community proposal exclude expressly dialects, and different
written forms of the same language.
see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
C.m.l.
----- Original Message ----
From: Stephen Bain <stephen.bain(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 7, 2008 2:24:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy
On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 1:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Acceptance of the RFC 4646 as the standard to go by would mean that we split
the
en.wikipedia.org in the many variants accepted under this standard. Not
a good idea you will agree.
On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Jesse Plamondon-Willard
<pathoschild(a)gmail.com> wrote:
It was retired before ISO 639-3 was published, and even if it weren't
it would fail the requirement that it "be sufficiently unique that it
could not coexist on a more general wiki".
In light of this requirement mentioned by Jesse, how is it a problem
that RFC 4646 provides for "many variants" (like en-GB, en-AU etc)?
--
Stephen Bain
stephen.bain(a)gmail.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l