LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4): pinyin
everson at evertype.com
Tue Sep 23 12:14:51 CEST 2008
On 23 Sep 2008, at 10:51, Mark Davis wrote:
> We should not be using year numbers in variant tags *unless* we mean
> precisely what is defined by a standard associated with that year.
> Otherwise the tag is too narrow, and does not describe the intended
> scope. The tag I am registering does NOT exclude changes made in a
> 2008 revision by the Belarusian academy, for example.
And 1959 is a year which defined a standard which is acknowledged by
users of the orthography as identifying for the orthography, even with
regard to 1933 and 1985.
> Take a variant that you yourself pushed for: en-GB-oed. Why didn't
> you ask for oed1928, or oed1933, or oed1986, or oed2007 in http://www.iana.org/assignments/lang-tags/en-GB-oed?
I don't believe that the orthography of the Oxford English Dictionary
has *ever* changed, since you ask.
> When you requested registration for fonipa, why was it not fipa1886,
> or fipa1989, or fipa2005?
What? Mark, come on. The IPA doesn't specify *any* orthography. This
is a complete red herring. It is completely unrelated to the
discussion of Belarusian orthography -- which *is* related to the
discussion we had about early French.
> For the same reasons, a year should not be part of this subtag.
> Doing anything else deviates radically from past practice, and sets
> a horrible precedent for the future.
I disagree. It gives me no pleasure to disagree with you but I believe
that you are overstating the point about practice and precedent here.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages