Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at
Wed Sep 24 18:34:02 CEST 2008

Peter Constable wrote:
>>> find the intent was to refer to an orthography, not an institution
>>> -- indeed, there's no reference to a particular institution:
>> And how do you describe an orthography, if not referring to the
>> rulebook, institution or decree??
> You include references to books or other accessible sources that document or exemplify the orthography, just as we've been doing with registrations for the past decade.

No, how do you actually describe it, like in "describe it in 8 letters 
or less"?

Sorry for reiterating the obvious, but you ought to select something 
recognisable about it -- which *may* be the name of the institution *as 
well*, or the year, or both. It may be different with other 

>> The original request was completely over the board with the
>> political groupspeak
> That may be the case -- I can't say, and I wasn't defending Mark's original request as appropriate for registration. But does it have bearing on the point being made, which was that tags that have been discussed other than 1959acad are not acceptable since they refer solely to an institution?

Wasn't my point, ever. I won't discuss this further as I still don't 
have it clear on subject of subtags having to be self-sufficient without 
the main tags.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list