Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

[CE Whitehead]

>
>At 16:04 -0800 2007-02-03, Doug Ewell wrote:
>
>>2.  Do NOT call this new subtag "nta".  (Variant subtags added under RFC 
>>4646 are canonically lowercase, though matching algorithms must be 
>>case-insensitive.)  The implied word "new" might unnecessarily reinforce 
>>the notion of this 1930s orthography as something "new," particularly in 
>>today's context where some former Soviet minority languages are again 
>>adopting (different) Latin orthographies. Instead, call it by its Tatar 
>>name "janalif" unless this would be unacceptable to non-Tatar speakers.

janalif would be best I think too because it is from the region
unless of course as you say it bothers non-Tatat speakers to have the subtag 
called janalif.
I think there are 3 variants of this name:
janalif, jangalif, yanalif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ja%C5%8Balif


Let Reshat correct me if this information is not correct; it is from 
Wikipedia!

Is the alphabet actually the Uniform Turkic Alphabet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Turkic_Alphabet

Would some variant of the above name do?

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>
>Is it the same as the pan-Turkic alphabet? Panturk would do if it is.
This might be o.k.


>--
>Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>_______________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________
>From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the 
Academy Awards® 
http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1