be-tarask

[Ciarán Ó Duibhín]

Two points I'd like to make on this.

1. For a registration to be useful, it must be clear what it refers to.
When this is not obvious from the name of the subtag, the minimum
explanation is to mention somewhere in the "record requested" section of the
application the name or names by which the variety is commonly known.
Establishing those names is an objective matter, and nothing to do with what
anyone thinks the variety ought or ought not to be called.

2. In considering a registration application, we are, in my view, providing
a service to the potential users of the subtag. Anyone can express a view on
subjective matters, but among those views, the views of the potential users
of the subtag carry greatest weight with me.

I have no personal opinion on the orthographical situation in Belarus.  The
above points do not depend on having such an opinion.  They would apply
equally if the situation were reversed (ie. if the "classical" people were
seeking to influence the description of an "official" subtag).

The relevant features of the proposal of 31 March
(http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2007-March/006155.html)
are:

In the "Record requested" section:
• there is no mention of "classical" in the subtag name
• there is no mention of "classical" in the description
• the comments read: "Belarusian in so called classical orthography or
Taraskievica"

In the additional fields of the application, outside the "record requested"
section:
• the "intended meaning of the subtag" includes the words "Taraskievica
orthography (or so called classical orthography)"
• the reference field includes a book entitled "Bielaruski klasycny
pravapis"
• there is no mention of "classical" in "any other relevant information"

Considering that "classical" is the epithet preferred by users of the
orthography, I consider that the proposal already bends over backwards to
meet the objections to that choice of word. I do not feel that any further
reduction in the prominence of that word, leading to its complete deletion
from the "record requested", is proper or helpful, and I would support the
proposal as made.

Ciarán Ó Duibhín