Reminder: Ulster Scots

[Mark Davis ☕]

I agree. In accordance with the general principles of BCP47, we should have
an "ulster" code. That lets people tag data appropriately, just as you can
tag data as "de" (German) even though there are multiple possible
orthographies or dialects.

If, in addition, there are multiple orthographies that need to be
distinguished, those should be *subtags*, eg ulster-rob2006.

Mark

— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —


On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:14, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> > Hands up, everyone, ulster or 2006ulst and why.
>
> I vote for 'ulster'.  It is functionally equivalent to '2006ulst' and
> much, much less cryptic.  We can always register 'ulster15' if an
> incompatibly different standard does emerge five years from now.
>
> We also need to decide whether the intended scope is
> dialect-plus-orthography or just orthography.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100331/6aeae211/attachment.htm