LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Unified Cornish
doug at ewellic.org
Tue Sep 30 15:02:09 CEST 2008
I wrote, among other things:
> Let's not hold these requests up over petty squabbles over the exact
> form of the subtags.
I received a rather angry private response to the effect that I was
trying to squelch debate when it was inconvenient.
Of course it's not inconvenient. We can and should debate any aspect of
any request that concerns us, including the subtag value. I apologize
for the inflammatory phrase "petty squabbles" and did not mean my
comments to be nasty in any way.
My personal opinion, as a contributor, is that when we have subtags
called '1606nict' and '1694acad', and are about to have '1959acad', and
were seriously considering 'hpin1958', that human scrutability has not
been proven to be a factor that deters approval of a subtag. And when
we have 'fonipa' and 'fonupa', two subtags that are built systematically
from a prefix ('fon' for phonetic) and a suffix that differs in only one
letter, easy visual differentiation has not been proven to be as
important a factor as descriptiveness and accuracy. 'arevmda' and
'arevela' are another example where we placed accuracy and avoidance of
generic words higher than visual distinctiveness.
I recognize that we have had lengthy debates recently over the exact
form of proposed subtags. As I tried (badly) to express, I believe the
Pinyin debate goes deeper than the subtag value itself; it is a question
of what the scope of the subtag should be, whether it should cover all
Pinyins or just one Pinyin, which is fundamental. And the Belarusian
debate became a question of whether 'academy' was sufficiently
generic-looking that it would seem to apply to any language variant
endorsed by an academy, somewhere in the world. These are both
weightier questions (again IMHO) than whether the values were optimally
descriptive, or visually distinct.
I've expressed my opinion about the subtags Michael proposed. We have
||: two weeks :|| to discuss any aspect of these requests that anyone
feels should be discussed. Let the debates resume, and again I
apologize for stating my position badly.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages