acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[CE Whitehead]

Hi

I think there are precendents for adding academy or akademy or akadem now and then adding in 1950 and 2008 or 2010 variants later (the Resian orthography subtags), but there are also precedents for doing things Yuri's way (adding two varieties, be-1959acad and be-2010acad (the 16th-17th century French subtags, 1694acad and 1606nict--the latter being troubling because it is so cryptic when in school I always learned 16eme siecle 17eme siecle, but . . . )


I want to allow Yuri and others who use this language to decide, and I'm happy to abstain from voting for one or the other version.



(P.S.  I would not ask for 1959acad-rev1959; maybe 1950acad-1959 or 1959acad-unrev  but these are all cryptic now anyway when I look at them, and since this suggestion was not well-received, forget it).


--C. E. Whitehead


From: "Tracey, Niall" niall.tracey at logica.com


> Yury Tarasievich said:

>> Why want the subtags' names to be hierarchical (to contain genealogy)
at all?

>>From a systems point of view it's very helpful, in terms of search and
backwards compatibility, where there is a high level of similarity
between forms -- even more so when we are talking about current
standards.

> If I wrote a search today that identifies all Academy-standard
Belarusian text in a database or library, I'd want it to work tomorrow
and next year, and the year after that. However, a search on be-1959acad
would cease to bring up new text as soon as be-2008acad became the
official norm. These dated tags are transient, and there is no permanent
umbrella tag that a librarian, systems developer or member of the public
can use to tie the variants together.

> A library may set up separate sections for classical and academy texts,
but we would expect 2008 standard academy texts to be shelved alongside
books written in the current standard. As such, we want an identifiable
common element, so the librarian can say to a trainee "all be-academy go
here, all be-tarask go here".


Yes but I think that the applications can 'be taught' to identify that be-1959acad is the same as be-2010acad, in any case.  A comment added to each subtag field in the registry could indicate that these were both variants in the same tradition.


> This is vastly preferable to the
alternative of "all be go here, unless they are be-tarask" -- what if
someone was to introduce be-arabic? We wouldn't want to shelve that
alongside the cyrillic texts, but our official procedures would say to
do so.

> In a normal library human common sense may prevail in this case, but in
automated systems that option isn't available.



> I favour adding "academy" now, and later (if deemed necessary) "-1959"
and "-2008" as further variants.


I think there are precendents for adding academy or akademy or akadem now and then adding in 1950 and 2008 or 2010 variants later (the Resian orthography subtags), but there are also precedents for doing things Yuri's way (adding two varieties, be-1959acad and be-2010acad (the 16th-17th century French subtags, 1694acad and 1606nict--the latter being troubling because it is so cryptic when in school I always learned 16eme siecle 17eme siecle, but . . . )

I want to allow Yuri and others who use this language to decide, and I'm happy to abstain from voting for one or the other version.



--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com