NEW-INSERT LANGUAGE SUBTAG MODIFICATION for "tarask"
Doug Ewell
dewell at adelphia.net
Tue May 8 15:45:59 CEST 2007
CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> Hi, I just wanted to clarify the formation of subtags for the variant
> tarask (see below):
>
> Would the correct tags for the tarask variant then be??:
>
> be-tarask { Classical, Cyrillic Script }
> (= be-Cyrl-tarask )
Yes.
> be-latn-tarask {Classical, Latin Script}
No, there is no such thing.
> be {official, Cyrillic Script, for now}
> (= be-Cyrl )
Yes.
> be-latn {official, Latin Script, for now}
Yes ("be-Latn" is canonical casing).
> But never use tarask-Cyrl or tarask-Latn as these probably can not be
> matched to any other tag using be , including be-tarask???
The script subtag must always go before the variant, so these are not
well-formed. (I assume "be-" was to be prefixed to each, otherwise they
are even less well-formed.)
--
Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list