Reminder: Ulster Scots
CE Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Mon Mar 29 22:29:15 CEST 2010
Hi.
Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Mon Mar 29 15:15:19 CEST 2010
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> I agree that for the most part, dates in subtags are unnecessarily
> inscrutable, and we should try to avoid them except when they are
> genuinely relevant to the identity of the variant being identified.
> Many language variations are codified in documents, which happen to have
> been written or published in a certain year, which might not mean
> anything to users.
> I would be fine with "robinson" or some variation, as opposed to
> "ulster," if that would provide a better hint that Robinson's
> orthography, and not the dialect, is what is being represented.
I would be fine with [robinson] if we could just make it [ulster-robinson], or some such nonsense,
but we cannot.
So I like Michael Everson's suggestion. (Sorry Doug; I usually agree with you.)
Or else just [ulster] with Robinson left to the description field?
Best,
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100329/726c9865/attachment.htm
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list