Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 108, Issue 12

[Sean B. Palmer]

Doug Ewell wrote:

> I do think 'tudor' beateth, sorry, beats the hell out of '1611kjv' or
> '1623shak' or '1590spen', all of which would seem even more limiting.

There will more likely be misuse of "en-tudor", with people thinking
it only applies to the Tudor period, than there will of
misappropriations of "-earlymod".

Remember, people will be seeing "en-tudor" used in source and copying
and pasting, coming to their own conclusions about what it means. That
is the same type of argument as the one against "-earlymod", that
people will reuse the variant for other languages because the came to
their own conclusions about how it can be used.

As Michael says, the string can be opaque. That would be much better,
because it would force people to look up the meaning.

Michael Everson wrote:

> Thus "en-lkjhgfds" could be a tag.

Other suggestions, then:

en-tustu (Tudor and Stuart)
en-16c17c (16th and 17th centuries)
en-16th17th (16th and 17th centuries)
en-1603lon (after 1603 London as a focal point)
en-c1603 (Circa 1603)
en-eamoe (EModE, genericised)
en-nashe (after Thomas Nashe)

Choosing 1603 because it contains both Tudor and Stuart rule. I'd
appreciate somebody to rate these, even if it's just "they're all
terrible". Most of them still suffer from the "too limited" problem,
but not as badly.

Don't forget, you don't have to rush this through in a single week!
Take your time, as Ludwig W. said.

-- 
Sean B. Palmer