Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants
Doug Ewell
dewell at adelphia.net
Fri Dec 15 07:04:58 CET 2006
CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> O.k. thanks, I do not know enough about these languages, my apologies.
> If the languages were normally written in Latin-based script then the
> script tag would be redundant;
> if they were normally written in Cyrillic script, then it would be
> necessary;
> also, if they can be written in either script, then the script tag
> would be necessary;
> also if they are were written in Arabic or any other script at least
> a good bit of the time (though not necessarily the majority of the
> time), the script tag would be necessary.
This is all correct as far as it goes, but Reşat's requests had nothing
to do with script subtags. He was requesting variant subtags for
specific *orthographies* of Tatar et al. that are primarily written with
Latin letters, with a few Cyrillic letters thrown in (but the overall
script is still Latin). There are several ways to write Tatar in Latin
script, and Reşat's proposed subtag "ussrlatn" would have identified a
specific one.
--
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list