BCP47 Appeals process
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Wed Sep 17 20:57:12 CEST 2008
David Starner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 12:31 PM, Yury Tarasievich
> <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com> wrote:
>> It's only the *sub*-tag, it has *no* meaning
>> per se, without its main tag.
> That's wrong; if this tag gets registered, -akadem or whatever will
> mean the Belarusian Academic orthography. de-akadem will be absurd but
> legal, meaning the Belarusian academic orthography of German.
Now *that*'s wrong. The word "akadem" doesn't *mean* anything, per se;
one'd have to introduce an explanation of it somewhere else. Given the
existence of such explanation, there is no sensible reason to try to
"tell the whole story in 8 letters or less" instead of going with the
identifier which's descriptive, unique and understandable by native
speakers, and which would be explained as well.
What *native speakers* want is Cyrillic, not Latin transliterations
(which they tend to use in un-systematic manner, anyway); but at least,
they tend to know some of the English and so will understand the
reference to the "(word) academy in English orthography".
Now, I'd like somebody to confirm the notion of subtags having an
indepent scope of reference in the registry. People keep referring to
the Need of some universal accomodations for the rather unlikely (or
rare) events -- like of some national academy issuing the standard for
some other national language. Seems not so sensible to me, but possibly
it's In The Rules (or in the interpretations)?
More information about the Ietf-languages