Variant tags for sl-rozaj: History and preliminaries
dewell at roadrunner.com
Tue Jun 12 15:53:28 CEST 2007
Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand dot no> wrote:
>> This boils down to the following list of variant tags to be proposed, in
>> order of urgency:
>> - major dialects
>> - standardized orthography
> This part worries me a bit. Is it the intention to allow a tag like
> "sl-rojaz-1994-biske" or "sl-rojaz-biske-1994", or is the intent that only
> "sl-rojaz-1994" should be used?
Since "biske" represents a dialect and "1994" an orthography, it makes sense
that the two could be used individually or together. This would not be the
case for two variants that both represent a variant (like "biske" and
"njiva") or both represent an orthography (like German "1901" and "1996").
> Any time we add more tag-generating rules (instead of just tags), my
> nerves twitch.
The rules are already in place in 4646. Han seems to have a good
understanding of them, and will apparently be proposing "1994" with a full
set of Prefix fields.
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages