Request for variant subtag: western

[Mark Davis]

Thanks. On the basis of discussion, I'm sending in a modified form.

Mark

On 8/29/06, Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>  Good enough; I'm OK with that, so long as we are consistent in providing
> enough info. We should say that's what should be done for posterity in
> 3066ter.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto:mark.edward.davis at gmail.com] *On
> Behalf Of *Mark Davis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:47 PM
>
> *To:* Peter Constable
> *Cc:* IETF Languages Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: Request for variant subtag: western
>
>
>
> We absolutely have the means to document it -- that's what the
> descriptions and comments are for. I like Addison's suggested style:
>
>   Prefix: hy
>  Comments: Prefix 'hy': Western Armenian, as distinct from
>    the Eastern dialect.
>
>
> So let's suppose that a year from now we decide that Western Saho needs to
> be distinguished from other dialects. Then we'd see the request for a
> registration of the form:
>
>   Prefix: ssy
>  Comments: Prefix 'ssy': Western Saho, as distinct from
>    the Eastern and Southern dialects.
>
> (I think comments are sufficient, but we could also use descriptions.)
>
> Mark
>
> AFAICT?
>
> On 8/29/06, *Peter Constable* <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> Please explain. Your mail to others does not AFAICT address the specific
> point I make here: if you revise a variant subtag by adding additional
> prefixes, we have no means to document what the denotation of some given
> prefix + variant combination is.
>
>
>
> E.g. suppose the entry for a variant subtag "western" were revised to
> include the prefix "en", and some people start using it to denote some
> variety of English spoken in Cornwall while others start using it to denote
> some variety of English spoken in Western Australia, then there's a mess.
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>   ------------------------------
>
> *From:* mark.edward.davis at gmail.com [mailto: mark.edward.davis at gmail.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Mark Davis
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 29, 2006 5:02 PM
> *To:* Peter Constable
>
>
> *Cc:* IETF Languages Discussion
> *Subject:* Re: Request for variant subtag: western
>
>
>
> That's based on a mistaken assumption (see my mail to others). Mark
>
> On 8/29/06, *Peter Constable* <petercon at microsoft.com > wrote:
>
> > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org ]
>
>
> > As for hy-hyewest, I think it's awful.
>
> While it may look aweful, an advantage of this is that we can document
> precisely what is meant by "hyewest" (or whatever form of subtag one might
> want) -- that is, it is the Armeanian variety spoken by the Armenian
> diaspora.
>
> But there is no way we can document how "western" ought to be interpreted
> in all of the combinations it is used (unless we want to allow multiple
> "western" variant entries, one for each prefix to be documented).
>
> And going back to a paper Gary Simons and I wrote back in 2000,
> documenting what tags are meant to denote is important. It won't help
> anybody if people start using "foo-western" but there are widely differing
> opinions as to what that refers to.
>
>
>
> Peter Constable
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20060830/5fe1908c/attachment.html