<font face="georgia,serif">I agree. In accordance with the general principles of BCP47, we should have an "ulster" code. That lets people tag data appropriately, just as you can tag data as "de" (German) even though there are multiple possible orthographies or dialects.</font><div>
<font face="georgia,serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="georgia,serif">If, in addition, there are multiple orthographies that need to be distinguished, those should be <b>subtags</b>, eg ulster-rob2006.</font></div><div>
<font face="georgia,serif"><br clear="all"></font>Mark<br><br>— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:14, Doug Ewell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:doug@ewellic.org">doug@ewellic.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> Hands up, everyone, ulster or 2006ulst and why.<br>
<br>
</div>I vote for 'ulster'. It is functionally equivalent to '2006ulst' and<br>
much, much less cryptic. We can always register 'ulster15' if an<br>
incompatibly different standard does emerge five years from now.<br>
<br>
We also need to decide whether the intended scope is<br>
dialect-plus-orthography or just orthography.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
--<br>
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | <a href="http://www.ewellic.org" target="_blank">http://www.ewellic.org</a><br>
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ <a href="http://is.gd/2kf0s" target="_blank">http://is.gd/2kf0s</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">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>