<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR>Sorry, I stand corrected; according to RFC 4647 a subtag is needed to specify this variety. Thanks for correcting me.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR><BR>From: mark@macchiato.com<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>
<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 </DIV>
<DIV>> use a year because there is no intention of *excluding* </DIV>
<DIV>> other years. </DIV>
<DIV>If there are enough distinctions between the 1959 and 2008 varieties, this might be useful with spelling checkers; but I assume one or the other variety will become the 'standard'<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, </DIV>
<DIV>> whatever year. In order to specify the academy version and only </DIV>
<DIV>> the academy version (not including tarask), we have to have </DIV>
<DIV>> a tag.</DIV>
<DIV><BR clear=all>Mark</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Right, my mistake, according to RFC 4647, basic filtering would match a request for be to both be and be-tarask (<A href="http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647">http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4647</A>)<BR><BR>--C. E. Whitehead</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR></DIV>
<DIV class=EC_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=EC_gmail_quote style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"><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=EC_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=EC_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=EC_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=EC_Ih2E3d><BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV class=EC_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>
<DIV><BR></DIV></DIV></DIV></body>
</html>