<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Hi, either [akademy] or [1959acad] satisfies the length requirement. <BR> However, I see now Michael Everson's point that the academy could publish a very different standard in the future; so, unless the 2008 and 1959 versions are sufficiently different that you want to register both as separate versions sometime soon, I withdraw my earlier support of [akademy] (my goof). I guess a subtag name such as [rev2008] ("revised 2008") could be used with [1959acad] if you at some point wanted to distinguish the 2008 variety from the 1959 variety.<BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A><BR> <BR><BR> <BR>Yury Tarasievich <A href="mailto:yury.tarasievich@gmail.com">yury.tarasievich@gmail.com</A><BR>> Mark Davis wrote:<BR>>> I think the year is a bad idea, because from all I've heard the >>year <BR>>> is not a defining feature, and there are other years attached >> to other <BR>>> variants. Moreover, it will be just peculiar to have<BR>>>> be-acad1959-2008<BR>>>> for the 2008 version of "akademic Belarusian", as may be >> desired in <BR>>> the future.<BR>> Other differences aside, I consider impractical all variants <BR>> which are transliterated (akad*), unusually truncated (acade) > or cryptic (nsbexxwhatever). So, it "ought" to be the <BR>> "academy". And having to both denote the concrete revision <BR>> and to satisfy the 8 chars limit naturally makes it 1959acad. <BR>>-Yury<BR></body>
</html>