Request for variant subtag: western
mark.davis at icu-project.org
Wed Aug 30 00:45:57 CEST 2006
There are no grounds in the RFC for denying the request on the basis that
unrelated variants must all be requested at once. The RFC specifically
allows for additional variants and additional prefixes to be added
I will be submitting a similar form for Eastern, since that is the other
variant needed for Armenian. (I waited just so the dust would settle on this
one.) But there is no need to register others until evidence has been shown
for usage, nor are we even allowed to register others until evidence has
been shown for usage.
On 8/29/06, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> At 15:25 -0700 2006-08-29, Mark Davis wrote:
> >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.
> In what way? In terms of computing, the orthography of the two
> dialects is prettyt much the same (the differences are small). In
> terms of pronunciation (and sometimes transliteration), the
> differences are major.
> >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.
> See the following list.
> etc etc etc etc etc etc
> Do your linguistic homework. If you want "generic" tags of this
> nature, propose to add a lot of them all at once.
> 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