From: Michael Everson (everson@evertype.com)
Date: Thu May 22 2003 - 15:21:17 EDT
At 12:53 -0500 2003-05-22, Brian Doyle wrote:
>This discussion is remarkably similar to the Gaelic/Irish debate.
No it isn't.
>It's curious to me, however, that Michael's position in that
>discussion (purposeful or not) was opposite the prescriptive
>normative stance.
No, my position was that the *particular* argument offered (that the
Irish constitution "permitted" only the use of a particular term) was
particularly bogus. I did not offer an opinion as to the *relative*
merits of "Irish" or "Irish Gaelic" or "Gaelic" in that particular
context.
>In fact, in discussing normatives and ISO 639, Michael was quick to
>point out that the two-letter codes are the normalized data in ISO
>639--not the language names.
That's true. :-)
>From a purely descriptive perspective, these facts would seem to indicate that
>both names are acceptable variants.
That doesn't mean that Persian isn't to be preferred in
Internationalized software, which, we have heard from Roozbeh, it is.
:-)
-- Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 22 2003 - 16:43:20 EDT