On Tue, 12 Sep 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> "Christopher J. Fynn" wrote:
> > In short I favour inclusion of codes for written languages in the Ethnolouge
> > list which are currently missing in ISO 639 (and the requirement for a certain
> > number of publications does not seem too onerous) - but do not favour the
> > adoption of all the languages in the Ethnolouge list wholesale
> > at this time as many of these appear to be only spoken languages or distinct
> > dialects.
>
> RFC 1766 already registers several languages, notably the zh-* family, that
> do not have distinct written forms.
Actually, the zh-* do have distinct written forms, especially zh-yue, from
zh-guoyu or the ambiguous zh.
Thomas Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
