acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[Ihar Mahaniok]

hi Michael,

but do you think that in this particular case it is so important?
There are practical uses of distinguishing "academic" from
"classical". But I don't see practical uses of distinguishing
"academic-1959" from "academic-2008". I believe nobody will create
distinct spellcheckers that work with only specific one of them;
rather, current "academic" spellcheckers that work by 1959 rules, will
be upgraded to fit 2008 rules. Also, the rules are similar enough so
it will be very difficult to distinguish whether one particular text
is written in academic-1959 or academic-2008. Therefore, I would
rather have no years in the subtag.

I understand your concerns about "academic". But the fact is that this
is one of only a few common names/descriptions for the version (others
being either even less stable, like "governmental", or derogatory,
like "narkamauka"). We could also go for names of authors of this
version; but the downside is that it will be difficult to understand
it.

If we go for variation of subtag referring academy, and if (though I
consider it very unlikely in any foreseeable future) academy ends up
creating a wildly different versionof the language, we can tackle this
at that time.

Also, variant with "akadem" is more referring to actual Belarusian
adjective, which is clearly naming the orthography, rather than to
Academy in the whole.

On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2008, at 01:05, Mark Davis wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> The year does not "exclude" other years. It refers to a particular
> orthography, defined in a particular source or set of sources. The year is
> not calendrical.
>
> "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.
>
> Since there is more than one academy version the requirement is for greater
> precision. We went over this at very great length when we dealt with older
> orthographies for French, and in my judgement the principles we agreed there
> should apply here.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
>