BCP47 Appeals process
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Thu Sep 18 07:40:56 CEST 2008
Broome, Karen wrote:
> I disagree. The French requests were very specific to particular
> documented revisions of the language and these were mentioned in the
> original request forms. This request is different. Mark asked for a
> tag that covered a group of related revisions. If we go with 1959acad
> I think we are reinterpreting his request based on what we think he
> needs, not what he requested.
> If we insist that the tag reference only the 1959 revision, what will
> we tell a requestor who wants a tag that ONLY relates to the 1959
> orthographic conventions? We're not giving Mark what he requested and
> we may be preventing future requests that may be useful to other parties.
Is it possible the requestor didn't specify his need precisely enough?
Or the requestor's knowledge of specifics is limited?
My *guess* is Mark needs this to process the CLDR request -- issued by
*me* in fact (prompted by the fact the CLDR is "allowing" to present the
Belarusian-language data in the non-academic literary norm).
Therefore Mark's request should read on the lines of "the literary norm
codified by National Academy of Sciences of Belarus". This would include
1934acad, 1959acad and possibly 2010acad. And CLDR could use the
More information about the Ietf-languages