Request for variant subtag: western

[Peter Constable]

I understand Michael’s concern about generic subtags: there’s a long list of possibilities, we might be able to combine those with any number of languages, and it could be somewhat confusing. (Would we want a tag for the western variant of Eastern Frisian?) But one thing Michael might be missing is that Mark’s request specifies “hy” as a specific prefix for use with this subtag: the generic tags would have limitations on how it should be used.

 

That raises a general question regarding generic tags of this type: is there an expectation that the registry would be updated to indicate a prefix before people start using that variant with some other language subtag? 

 

If so, then it seems like we would be choosing between these two options: one generic variant subtag (e.g. “western”) with many registry updates to add prefixes to that subtag, or multiple registrations for language-specific variant subtags (e.g. “hyewest”)

 

As for whether *something* should be registered in response to Mark’s request, I don’t see any basis for rejecting unless one can demonstrate that the “Western” distinction really isn’t appropriate for Armenian varieties.

 

 

Peter Constable

 

________________________________

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 3:46 PM
To: Michael Everson
Cc: IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: Request for variant subtag: western

 

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 successively. 

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. 

Mark

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.

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
Local
Native
Indigenous
Diaspora
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 
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20060829/9a58d32f/attachment-0001.html