Hoi,<br>If that is the case then maybe. In the WMF we have had two groups of people who were bringing conflicting information. I am not convinced about the information provided. If anything, this is the kind of issue where the notions of ISO-639-6 would help. Dealing with this in isolation is imho a bad idea.
<br><br>It has also been said that there are three orthographies.. the third has not been discussed at all. <br><br>I would urge restraint and have someone who is knowledgeable about this whole issue report on this before you would accept any code. I would also make sure that there are acceptable names for these orhtographies in Belarus. Be aware that we can get ourselves in diplomatic hot water about this.
<br><br>Thanks,<br> Gerard<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 3/31/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Frank Ellermann</b> <<a href="mailto:nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de">nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de</a>> wrote:</span>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">zedlik wrote:<br><br>> in Internet Taraskievica is used much oftener than Narkamauka<br><br>
If that's the case it could be better to register both variants,<br>maybe using "1933" or "1959" for the official orthography.<br><br>The application I've in mind are spell checkers, they could ask
<br>the user or pick a user defined default for "be" texts without<br>variant, and otherwise they'd use "tarask" vs. "1993" or "1959".<br><br>Frank<br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>Ietf-languages mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
</a><br></blockquote></div><br>