<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On 23 Sep 2008, at 10:44, Tracey, Niall wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>OK, so if it's not -tarask it's going to be (close to) one of the academy's forms, but you're spinning this one rather heavily. Mark wants a closed set of very closely related variants to be explicitly marked as a family.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And 1959acad will do that. And I am proposing a registration form will specify that it covers (at least) 1933, 1959, 1985 revisions. Once again, I have rejected a purely institutional name here. Please recall that Yury said:</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: -webkit-monospace; "><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">The academic norm is referenced as *the* "literary norm [with no further qualification] which is conforming <span class="Apple-style-span" style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: -1; ">to the ruleset introduced in 1959". That's what the "simple people" learn.</span></blockquote></blockquote></span></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Now I ask you -- if we go to the point of classifying to a particular edition of the rule book, what do we do if someone breaks the rules? How many spelling mistakes do we have to make to not be using that language/variant?</div></blockquote><div><br></div>It's not rule-breaking, but rule-setting, that is at question here. In any case I hope very much that the compromise will prove satisfactory.</div><div><br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: -webkit-monospace; ">Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com/">http://www.evertype.com</a></span></div><div apple-content-edited="true"> </div><br></body></html>