acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 29 17:22:31 CEST 2008


Sorry, I stand corrected; according to RFC 4647 a subtag is needed to specify this variety.  Thanks for correcting me.
 
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com From: mark at macchiato.com
>> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag  

> Yes, adding the year is not the right answer. If people want a tag > that is obscured, we might as well use 'akad1234'; we shouldn't 
> use a year because there is no intention of *excluding* 
> other years. 
If there are enough distinctions between the 1959 and 2008 varieties, this might be useful with spelling checkers; but I assume one or the other variety will become the 'standard'
>> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag  

> This is incorrect. "be" means *ANY* "be", tarask or akademic, 
> whatever year. In order to specify the academy version and only 
> the academy version (not including tarask), we have to have 
> a tag.
Mark
 
Right, my mistake, according to RFC 4647, basic filtering would match a request for be to both be and be-tarask (http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647)--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:39 PM, CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi!Mark Davis's solution is a solution I'd favor--we could add subtags 1959 and 2008 later on -- and then if the people who requested the [tarask] subtag want pre-1933 and post-1933 distinctions they can request those as well later on.  However, if Yury is o.k. about having two subtags now . . . I leave it up to him.However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag is not necessary I suppose; however if there is about an equal amount of content online in both variants, this asymmetrical tagging system might be confusing to some content authors (although applications should not have a problem with this)It should of course, as Yuri has insisted, be a subtag name that makes sense to Yuri and other users of this variety, if a subtag is necessary.
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.comFrom: "Doug Ewell"> Yury Tarasievich  wrote:>>> What is vague about 'tarask'? Is there more than one orthography>>> commonly known as "Taraskievica"?>> So you missed this part. Yes, at least two: 2005 (Viachorka's project>> with changed alphabet) and not-2005. And "not-2005" may be partitioned>> at least once: "pre-1933 and direct derivatives" and the modern>> re-creations which are defined (by academic Padluzhny) as a>> "contamination (ling.) of academic lit. norm with some of the>> pre-reform features".>Are the variations so different that it would be inappropriate to use one subtag to> refer to all of them? What about the different versions of the Academy orthography?> The important taggable difference seems to be between the Academy and> Taraskievica orthographies, not between sub-varieties of either.> --Doug EwellFrom: "Mark Davis"> I think it is a bad idea to use years, since clearly people use the terms"akademic"> and "taraskievica" as broad contrastive groupings, and within each of those there> may be distinct variants where it would make sense to have years attached.  If later> on someone really thinks that it is necessary to separate those subvariants, that can> always be done. See http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry> where we have such fine distinctions as: sl-rozaj-biske-1994> MarkThis is a solution I'd favor--we could add subtags 1959 and 2008 later on and then if the people who requested the [tarask] subtag want pre-1933 and post-1933 distinctions they can request those as well.  However, if Yury is happy having two subtags now  .  .  . this should be his call.from: Yury Tarasievich
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:>> Given that this will be the label for the official orthography of the>> Belarus language, given that there are strong objections to>> the proposed label. Given that this list is not a group of "folks" that do>> things  without consideration of the consequences, it matters a lot>> what the end result will be.> Well, it's no secret that the last year "be-tarask" request was aimed> for some sort of "official" recognition of the entity.  This here request is> filed by one of the same people and is, as I see it, aimed for some sort> of "demotion" of academical, official norm ("you will not enjoy the pure> be code, too"; cf. the last year discussion posts ca. May 2 or so).Yuri, I think that the request for a subtag [be-tarask] was appropriate since there was content on the internet in that orthography; we have approved subtags for a number of variant orthographies--and have subtags for some of the variations in English spelling too.  In assigning subtags, as I understand things (correct me if I am wrong), variant subtags are assigned when there is enough content on the internet in a particular variant and that distinguishing that variant will enable (hopefully, someday, when the applications catch up to the subtags) people who want content in that particular variant to request it; the assignment of such subtags will enable spelling checkers to check the spelling of content in that variant.  That's all a subtag means; it has not so much to do with official recognition, in my opinion, as it has to do with whether there is content out there that some people want distinguished.But you are right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag is not necessary I suppose; however if there is about an equal amount of content online in both variants, this asymmetrical tagging system might be confusing to some content authors (although applications should not have a problem with this)
> Now, the idea of the new subtag is overwhelmingly supported >here.While I just do not understand the urging need (looking from> Belarus), I'm fine with it, as long as it isn't something indescriptive,> incomprehensible, silly or abusive.Yes, it should be a subtag name that makes sens to you and other users of this variety, if a subtag is necessary.
--C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com


_______________________________________________Ietf-languages mailing listIetf-languages at alvestrand.nohttp://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080829/ae194dcf/attachment-0001.htm 


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list