• From: Tim Bray <tbray@t...>
• To: Elliotte Rusty Harold <elharo@m...>, "Unicode List" <unicode@u...>
• Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2000 11:44:49 -0700

At 01:24 PM 4/25/00 -0400, Elliotte Rusty Harold wrote:
>Has anybody noticed that XML 1.0 requires 2-letter and forbids 
>three-letter language codes? From section 2.1.2 of the XML 1.0 spec:
...
>Production 35 enforces this constraint.
>I think XML needs another erratum here to fix this.

Yes... there was a good reason, but I don't recall what it was; we
looked at the 3-letter options carefully.  I seem to recall a finding
that the ISO process on finalizing the 3-letter version seemed to be 
seriously hung, but this is back in 1997... -Tim

***************************************************************************
This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers.
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev
List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
***************************************************************************

• Prev by Date: RE: what Napster means for XML
• Next by Date: Re: List server progress...
• Previous by thread: Re: Official ISO 639 changes
• Next by thread: Re: Official ISO 639 changes
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread