<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
--></style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR> <BR>
<BR>
Hi.<BR>Phillips, Addison addison at amazon.com <BR>Wed Mar 31 16:55:57 CEST 2010 <BR>
Previous message: Reminder: Ulster Scots <BR>
> I'm not a big fan, personally, of dated subtags. They are non-mnemonic, unattractive, and could be misleading (things published in 1603 might use the 1606 orthography). It is just as possible that a new wordlist gets published (next year or ninety years from now) and it still be considered the same orthography (new words are created all the time) and thus still "2006ulst" even though there exists, say, a 2010 revision thereof.<BR>
> If a date is reasonable and meaningful for a given orthography, I'm all for it. But this case doesn't *necessarily* fit.<BR>Maybe ulster ?<BR>or ulster (or lallans though I think lallans is now dated)-robinson ? That is, to register a variant for the dialect and then one for the orthography?<BR>Or ulster-2006 ? that is o.k. too.<BR>Either would allow the registration of historical forms though this seems counter to Doug's proposal -- which I support I think.<BR>But this way it is possible to deprecate the second subtag -- the one for the orthography?<BR>
Best,<BR>
--C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR>C. E. Whitehead<BR>
<BR>Internationalization is not a feature.<BR>It is an architecture.<BR>
<BR>
<BR> <BR> </body>
</html>