<div dir="ltr">I think the year is a bad idea, because from all I've heard the year is not a defining feature, and there are other years attached to other variants. Moreover, it will be just peculiar to have<div><br></div>
<div>be-acad1959-2008</div><div><br></div><div>for the 2008 version of "akademic Belarusian", as may be desired in the future.</div><div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:19 PM, Yury Tarasievich <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:yury.tarasievich@gmail.com">yury.tarasievich@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">Frank Ellermann wrote:<br>
> Mark Davis wrote:<br>
><br>
>> In order to specify the academy version and only the<br>
>> academy version (not including tarask), we have to<br>
>> have a tag.<br>
><br>
> Okay, it is up to you now, there were more than enough<br>
> suggestions for plausible (and not too general) names,<br>
> and Yuri provided a list of additional references as<br>
> requested by Michael to arrive at a clear definition.<br>
><br>
> IIRC you don't care about the variant name, just pick,<br>
> apparently Yuri's evidence and Michael's request could<br>
> justify "acad1959".<br>
<br>
</div>I'm leaning towards the "1959acad", especially per yesterday's<br>
guidelines recapitulation by Doug Ewell.<br>
<br>
All other variants (transliterated, unusually truncated, cryptic) I<br>
consider impractical.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
-Yury<br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<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" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>