Request for variant subtag: western
mark.davis at icu-project.org
Wed Aug 30 00:25:13 CEST 2006
The goal of RFC3066bis is to distinguish important cases, and the
distinction between Western Armenian and Eastern Armenian is *far* more
significant than the distinction between de and de-1901 or en-GB-oed and
en-GB, and far more important than the distinction between en and en-boont.
The text of RFC3066bis specifically recognizes that the same variant subtag
might be applicable to multiple prefixes; the meaning of the variant is
relevant to that prefix.
On 8/29/06, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> At 17:51 -0400 2006-08-29, John Cowan wrote:
> >Michael Everson scripsit:
> >> I don't like this kind of thing at all. There are many compass
> >> directions and subdivisions thereof (North by Northwest etc), and
> >> there are hills and valleys and there are various levels of altitude.
> >> There is Hill Mari and Forest Mari. This list of vague generic
> >> (sub)tags like this is pretty endless.
> >Very true, and as we need them, we can add them. The alternative is
> >inventing new language-specific variant subtags when generic ones
> >reflect standard practice, as with Armenian and many other languages.
> >This should be approved.
> If a distinction between Western and Eastern Armenian needs to be
> approved, codes for those languages should be requested.
> If you want a great swath of generic terms like Eastern Western
> Northern Southern Northeastern Northwestern Southeastern Southwestern
> Inner Outer Upper Lower Hill Plain Valley Cave Desert Jungle Central
> Peripheral Prestige Vulgar Urban Rural Village Town Male Female Adult
> Adolescent Child Sacred Profane Loal Diaspora etc etc etc etc etc etc
> etc etc etc etc etc, add them to 3066ter. This list is endless.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages