Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Er... so take it up with the ISO standard?
It's got nothing to do with ISO. > Having twenty packages named using a standard aspell-<ll>, and one > package named 'aspell-<cc>' seems more confusing to me, particularly > if you're a user who *needs* the package in question and > consequently are likely to know what the language code is. Again it's not about <ll> vs <cc>; I don't care what is used in place of "uk" as long as it's not "uk". What exactly is wrong with "ukr" for instance? > Are you really suggesting that people are going to look at 'aspell-uk' > and think "Oh, good, just what I needed, a dictionary of words specific > to Britain"? Err, yes. I certainly would. Why on earth wouldn't they? There's precedent for British dictionaries after all (ibritish). -- James
