RE: [mo/mol] and [ro/ron/rum]

From: Peter Constable (
Date: Thu Aug 19 2004 - 19:33:54 CDT

  • Next message: Michael Everson: "RE: [mo/mol] and [ro/ron/rum]"

    > From: Peter Kirk []

    > >After all, the question asked has nothing directly to do with the
    > >Unicode Consortium, UTC or the Unicode Standard: ISO 639 is wholly an
    > >ISO standard.
    > If "the question asked has nothing directly to do with the Unicode
    > Consortium, UTC or the Unicode Standard", why was it asked on this

    Because questions pertaining to i18n are generally of interest to
    subscribers and are often addressed on this list, even if strictly
    speaking off topic.

    > By asking it here, you made the connection yourself, Peter.

    I don't think so...

    > But I
    > assumed there was a link here to CLDR which, if I remember correctly,
    > uses these codes.

    If you're not using these and not sure where they are being used, then
    this question wasn't for you.

    > >... If there is a strongly-felt distinct cultural identity,
    > >then there may be grounds to consider there to be two different
    > >languages (cf Serbo-Croatian).
    > This was my point. You need to find out if there is such a
    > distinction, and the way to find this is not by asking this list but
    > asking Moldovans, and Romanians. You could start with their US

    You still miss my point -- this has nothing to do with my question.
    Sure, the perceptions and attitudes of Moldavians and Romanians is a
    factor in whether both ro and mo are needed for IT applications. But my
    question was whether anybody knew of any ways in which deprecation of mo
    would present problems for any existing implementations. That is also a
    factor in deciding what should be done with these two identifiers that
    appear to be synonyms.

    Peter Constable

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Aug 19 2004 - 19:34:38 CDT