ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Nov 4 15:04:11 CET 2008
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
>> Disagree. ro-MD is not necessarily written in Cyrillic. The
>> Preferred-value should be "ro".
> Indeed older Romanian from Romania is written in Cyrillic (Slavonic
> font variant).
>> Agree, since the language is not overwhelmingly written in either
>> Latin or Cyrillic.
> Erm, Romanian kind of *is* overwhelmingly written in Latin.
"Romanian" as currently used in Romania is overwhelmingly written in
Latin. "Moldovan" or "Moldavian" as used in Moldova (a different
dialect of the Romanian language, as now recognized by the RA) is
primarily, but not exclusively, written in Latin. Moldovan (Romanian)
as used in Transnistria is primarily, perhaps even overwhelmingly,
written in Cyrillic. Historical Romanian from Romania is written in
Thus: the overall language that will be represented by 'ro', in its
various flavors, is not overwhelmingly written in any one script, and
consequently the existing Suppress-Script for 'ro' will no longer be
appropriate and should be removed.
>>> It is thus generally equivalent in function to "ro-Cyrl-MD".
>> Disagree. It is generally equivalent to "ro-MD".
> As I said, both ro-Cyrl-RO and ro-Cyrl-MD are valid... and are not
> identical, either.
As always, when the regional and/or script distinctions are pertinent,
the corresponding subtags are available to differentiate them.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages