sl-rozaj: language-dialect-subdialect strings

John Clews Scripts2 at
Tue Oct 14 23:26:56 CEST 2003

Han - Thanks for the very detailed and well-argued analysis.
A lot of this could be applied straight away, in some ways.

However, there seems to be some further sorting out which will be
necessary. See also the issues 3 and 4 - I'd welcome input on
those points.

1. Here's what exists:


Here's what slightly worries me:

Han Steenwijk wrote in his email:

        On the level of the spoken language, there does not exist a
        linguistic entity that is solely and exhaustively
        indentifiable as *sl-rozaj*.

In that case, should it have been registered as such?
See also my comments on 3. below.

2. Here's what is requested as subtags:

Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-bisk...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-njiv...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-osoj...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-solb...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-lipa...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-rava...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-ucja...

Tag to be registered       : sl-rozaj-1994

(Note on "...": I haven't changed the 4-character subtag suggestions.
I'm sure that Han can do that without help from me :-)

I'd agree with both Han and Peter that strings other than 4-letters
be used (as ISO 15924 strings are likely to be 4-character strings).

3. Instead, why not have the following strings?

Tag to be registered       : sl-bisk...
Tag to be registered       : sl-njiv...
Tag to be registered       : sl-osoj...
Tag to be registered       : sl-solb...
Tag to be registered       : sl-lipa...
Tag to be registered       : sl-rava...
Tag to be registered       : sl-ucja...

(Again, I haven't changed the 4-character subtag suggestions).

Reason: As the entities above represent dialects of Resian (a dialect
of Slovenian), they also represent dialects of Slovenian.

RFC 3066 and its registrations haven't had strings for subdialects
before, only for dialects (whether or not they can also be regarded
as sub-dialects).

I'd prefer to see no extension of a new "method"
(language-dialect-subdialect) to RFC 3066 without further discussion.

However, I have no objection to some sort of tag registration for the
above languages.

4. Does "sl-rozaj-1994" actually need to be registered? I maintain
that it doesn't, at least at this stage. As the most standardized
(sub-)dialect) it's likely to be the default usage on web-pages etc.
for Resian.

The default use of eng, deu, etc will use the standardised
orthography as default, and the same should also apply to sl-rozaj.

5. I wonder, given the documentation on Resian, whether Resian should
be listed as a language, and have a single code (also in ISO 639-2).

I don't know, or have views: I just raise the question.

Best wishes


John Clews,
Keytempo Limited (Information Management),
8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG
Tel:    +44 1423 888 432
mobile: +44 7766 711 395
Email:  scripts2 at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list