I don't want to object here, I am actually ok with 1959acad, just some clarification: I don't think "1959" is iconic. Actually, vast majority of users of academic orthography wouldn't recall this date; the word "academic" is more important. Unfortunately, Yury made it clear that he is against all forms of "akadem", "akad", "acad" and so on.<br>
<br>Ihar<br><br>2008/9/23 Michael Everson <<a href="mailto:everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</a>>:<br>> On 23 Sep 2008, at 11:20, Tracey, Niall wrote:<br>><br>> If you are genuinely saying that you are proposing to call the tag 1959acad and accept standards defined before and after that year, then your choice of number is worse than meaningless -- it is misleading. That is insupportable.<br>
><br>> I don't believe so. Yury has made it clear that "1959" is iconic for the actual users of the orthography.<br>> Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com">http://www.evertype.com</a><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">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
><br>><br><br>