<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'><br>Hi, I typed both email addresses, but somehow hotmail lost the first.<br>So I am resending this, to ietf-languages as well as to Doug.<br>Sorry.<br><br>Best,<br><br>--C. E. Whitehead<br>cewcathar@hotmail.com<br><br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">From: cewcathar@hotmail.com<br>To: ietf-languages@iana.org<br>Subject: New variant subtags for Serbian language<br>Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 16:19:33 -0500<br><br>
<style><!--
.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {
padding:0px;
}
.ExternalClass body.ecxhmmessage {
font-size:12pt;
font-family:Calibri;
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr"><i><br><br></i><pre>Hi once more.<br>CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com<br>Tue Nov 19 21:55:07 CET 2013<br>> Hi.
> Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
> Tue Nov 19 19:21:21 CET 2013
>><i> . . .
</i>>>><i> This is how Wikipedia classifies these. So doing so might help those
</i>>>><i> who follow Wikipedia's scheme get search results.
</i>
>><i> If you mean Wikipedia's internal language coding system (as opposed to
</i>>><i> the content of its articles), this is not relevant since that system
</i>>><i> does not use BCP 47.
</i>
> No, I meant "who follow" the content of its articles/its linguistic classification scheme as defined in its articles, and not its internal coding scheme. That is I meant sites that currently tag linguistic that is in these languages/dialects as dialects of Serbo-Croatian.
> Thus my purpose was to say that whether these have sh- as the macro-language, or whether one is considered a variant of Bosnian, should depend on how current internet content in these languages is classified/tagged.
> . . .
In other words, if Chakavian content is tagged as Croatian, then it should be classified as a variant of Croatian; but if it is tagged [sh], following Wikipedia's scheme, then it should be treated, along with other content tagged [sh], as having [sh] as its macrolanguage.<br><br>Unless there is good reason to consider it a separate language. I think this is in keeping with what you think is advisable.<br><br>I admit I do not know how the content is currently tagged.<br><br>Thanks for your reply and explanations. <br><br>Best,
--C. E. Whitehead
<a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages" target="_blank">cewcathar at hotmail.com</a>
</pre><br> </div></div> </div></body>
</html>