<div dir="ltr">Hoi,<br>The Wikimedia Foundation will not accept a new project for an orthography. The reason why we have the <a href="http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org">be-x-old.wikipedia.org</a> is because the Belarus Wikipedia was high jacked and there was no way that these people wanted to be inclusive in one Belarus language project.<br>
<br>For new languages according to the current language policy accept only one project and they have to be inclusive of dialects, orthographies and scripts. <br><br>Consequently the code that should be used for Belarus would be "be". What is being discussed is using what will be the hierarchical nature that will become available with the ISO-639-6. Belarus has written language. Belarus written language has orthographies. Orthographies have iterations.<br>
<br>In my opinion, the official Belarus language is not different from the Dutch language; it also has multiple orthographies and we do not restrict Dutch to one iteration of the official orthography. Consequently the inclusion of a year in the code gives the wrong impression. The impression should be that this is the official orthography. This idea is not conveyed by calling it academic either.<br>
<br>Thanks,<br> Gerard<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Michael Everson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div style=""><div><div class="Ih2E3d"><div>On 27 Aug 2008, at 16:40, Ihar Mahaniok wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>Was 1959 revision more important than 1933 and 2008 revisions?<br><br>And, the problem I see with this proposal is that it is unclear (from<br>
the tag itself) whether it is supposed to cover 2008 revision as well<br>or not.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></div><div>In my opinion if there is only to be ONE subtag for this it should be for the one that you could make a spell-checker or Wikipedia with. I'd have no problem with three of them, if each pointed to an authoritative dictionary or grammar.</div>
<div><br></div></div><div class="Ih2E3d"><div> <span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div style="">
<span style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><div style="">
<div><span>Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com/" target="_blank">http://www.evertype.com</a></span></div></div></span></div></span> </div><br></div></div><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" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>