<div dir="ltr">> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag <div><br></div><div>Yes, adding the year is not the right answer. If people want a tag that is obscured, we might as well use 'akad1234'; we shouldn't use a year because there is no intention of *excluding* other years.<div>
<br></div><div>> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag <div><br></div><div>This is incorrect. "be" means *ANY* "be", tarask or akademic, whatever year. In order to specify the academy version and only the academy version (not including tarask), we have to have a tag.</div>
<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:39 PM, CE Whitehead <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
Hi!<br>
Mark Davis's solution is a solution I'd favor--we could add subtags 1959 and 2008 later on -- and then if the people who requested the [tarask] subtag want pre-1933 and post-1933 distinctions they can request those as well later on. However, if Yury is o.k. about having two subtags now . . . I leave it up to him.<br>
<br>
However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag is not necessary I suppose; however if there is about an equal amount of content online in both variants, this asymmetrical tagging system might be confusing to some content authors (although applications should not have a problem with this)<br>
<br>
It should of course, as Yuri has insisted, be a subtag name that makes sense to Yuri and other users of this variety, if a subtag is necessary.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
--C. E. Whitehead<br>
<a href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</div>From: "Doug Ewell"<br>
> Yury Tarasievich wrote:<br>
>>> What is vague about 'tarask'? Is there more than one orthography<br>
>>> commonly known as "Taraskievica"?<br>
>> So you missed this part. Yes, at least two: 2005 (Viachorka's project<br>
>> with changed alphabet) and not-2005. And "not-2005" may be partitioned<br>
>> at least once: "pre-1933 and direct derivatives" and the modern<br>
>> re-creations which are defined (by academic Padluzhny) as a<br>
>> "contamination (ling.) of academic lit. norm with some of the<br>
>> pre-reform features".<br>
>Are the variations so different that it would be inappropriate to use one subtag to<br>
> refer to all of them? What about the different versions of the Academy orthography?> The important taggable difference seems to be between the Academy and<br>
> Taraskievica orthographies, not between sub-varieties of either.<br>
> --Doug Ewell<br>
<br>
From: "Mark Davis"<br>
> I think it is a bad idea to use years, since clearly people use the terms"akademic"<br>
> and "taraskievica" as broad contrastive groupings, and within each of those there<br>
> may be distinct variants where it would make sense to have years attached. If later> on someone really thinks that it is necessary to separate those subvariants, that can> always be done. See <a href="http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry" target="_blank">http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry</a><br>
> where we have such fine distinctions as: sl-rozaj-biske-1994<br>
> Mark<br>
This is a solution I'd favor--we could add subtags 1959 and 2008 later on and then if the people who requested the [tarask] subtag want pre-1933 and post-1933 distinctions they can request those as well. However, if Yury is happy having two subtags now . . . this should be his call.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
from: Yury Tarasievich<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> Gerard Meijssen wrote:<br>
>> Given that this will be the label for the official orthography of the<br>
>> Belarus language, given that there are strong objections to<br>
>> the proposed label. Given that this list is not a group of "folks" that do>> things without consideration of the consequences, it matters a lot<br>
>> what the end result will be.<br>
> Well, it's no secret that the last year "be-tarask" request was aimed<br>
> for some sort of "official" recognition of the entity. This here request is<br>
> filed by one of the same people and is, as I see it, aimed for some sort<br>
> of "demotion" of academical, official norm ("you will not enjoy the pure<br>
> be code, too"; cf. the last year discussion posts ca. May 2 or so).<br>
<br>
</div>Yuri, I think that the request for a subtag [be-tarask] was appropriate since there was content on the internet in that orthography; we have approved subtags for a number of variant orthographies--and have subtags for some of the variations in English spelling too. In assigning subtags, as I understand things (correct me if I am wrong), variant subtags are assigned when there is enough content on the internet in a particular variant and that distinguishing that variant will enable (hopefully, someday, when the applications catch up to the subtags) people who want content in that particular variant to request it; the assignment of such subtags will enable spelling checkers to check the spelling of content in that variant. That's all a subtag means; it has not so much to do with official recognition, in my opinion, as it has to do with whether there is content out there that some people want distinguished.<br>
<br>
But you are right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB variant so that an additional subtag is not necessary I suppose; however if there is about an equal amount of content online in both variants, this asymmetrical tagging system might be confusing to some content authors (although applications should not have a problem with this)<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">> Now, the idea of the new subtag is overwhelmingly supported >here.While I just do not understand the urging need (looking from<br>
> Belarus), I'm fine with it, as long as it isn't something indescriptive,<br>
> incomprehensible, silly or abusive.<br>
</div>Yes, it should be a subtag name that makes sens to you and other users of this variety, if a subtag is necessary.<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
--C. E. Whitehead<br>
<a href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</a><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div>