Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c RESUBMISSION

Ciarán Ó Duibhín ciaran at
Fri Jan 26 23:01:35 CET 2007

Thanks to John, Addison and Doug for clarifying that there is no technical
objection to having several (in the paradigmatic sense) prefixes associated
with a subtag.  And to Doug for clarifying that his reservations about the
French case arise from the lack of a principled way of deciding which prefix
to use with a common subtag.  I'll take that up later, if I may.

Meanwhile, I would agree with Addison that
<<the tag "frm-1694" would seem to be nonsensical: if "1694" identifies
"Early Modern French", it doesn't make any sense to allow the tag
"frm-1694", which means approximately "the Early Modern French variation of
Middle French".>>
if it were true that both the prefix and the subtag are describing the
nature of the language.  But it becomes clear from the previously-favoured
form of the subtags, 16siecle and 17siecle, that there are two dimensions
involved, the nature of the language (frm vs fr) and the chronology (16eme
vs 17eme).  So I take "frm-17siecle" to mean text dating from the 17th
century but which is not intelligible to the speaker of Modern French; while
"fr-16siecle" is text dating from the 16th
century but which is intelligible to the speaker of Modern French.

Ciarán Ó Duibhín

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list