Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c Resubmitted!

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Tue Dec 19 20:50:13 CET 2006


Hi -

> From: "CE Whitehead" <cewcathar at hotmail.com>
> To: <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>
> Cc: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:51 AM
> Subject: Re: Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c Resubmitted!
...
> >How we procede here hinges on whether someone can nail down the difference
> >between "fr-1606Nict" and "frm-1606Nict".  If they are *indistinguishable*,
> >then the registration request would be in line with what RFC 4646
> >has to say about multiple prefixes for variant subtags.
> >
> >If there really is a difference between "fr-1606Nict" and "frm-1606Nict",
> >and I understand CE Whitehead's earlier postings to suggest that there is,
> >then it seems that distinct subtags should be used, again based on what
> >RFC 4646 has to say about multiple prefixes for variant subtags.
> 
> O.k. I will try; I am more of an expert on the 17th century than on the 16th 
> because I studied it in a literature survey class and on my own informally.  
> One question I have is how much of the 16th century and the 17th century are 
> distinguished though I can easily see a distinction between 15th and 17th 
> century French and even between 15th and 16th century French!
...

Thank you for the extended examples.  You identified
one as "frm". Which of the examples would be tagged
"fr-1606Nict" and which would be tagged "frm-1606Nict"
using the proposed subtags?  What are the criteria for
deciding to use one or the other?

The data you've given seem to justify using the tags
fr, frm, and fr-1606Nict.  What I seem to have missed
is a clear case for frm-1606Nict, distinct from frm
and from fr-1606Nict.

Randy



More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list