Michael Everson everson at
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

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 *

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list