Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c

Mark Davis mark.davis at
Wed Dec 13 03:27:54 CET 2006

On 12/12/06, Michael Everson <everson at> wrote:
> At 16:49 -0800 2006-12-12, Mark Davis wrote:
> >So "Middle Cornish" refers to the language of the fourteenth and
> >fifteenth centuries, for example. This doesn't mean that Middle
> >Cornish was unchanging during that period, of course, and a scholar
> >could well want to refer to the typically language of the 14th
> >century vs the 15th century. Now, of course, we could go down the
> >line of saying that every time a scholar wants to refer to something
> >on a century level s/he has to go cap in hand to M. Everson and
> >convince him that some unique name should be attached to that
> >variant, or we could provide a mechanism that lets people tag what
> >they want without so doing.
> Yeah, right. It's 01:00 and I'm going to have to deal with this
> tomorrow, but you DON'T know anything about Middle Cornish, and it
> DOESN'T fit into this kind of neat-and-tidy century box. Accordingly,
> I am suspicious of neat and tidy boxes. However appealing such
> "quick-and-dirty white-board" ideas might seem "good" to M. Davis, it
> is the case that M. Everson does his job with some diligence, and
> wishes to make sure we do not make a hames of this RFC.

Dr Davis is looking forward the the explanation from Mr Everson as to why a
generative region is so much better than a generative variant, eg that
fr-FR, fr-BE, or fr-CH is so much better defined than fr-1500s, and hoping
that it will not simply be an ad hominem argument.

And you didn't say anything about the other 19 centuries CE or the
> BCE centuries either.

With the addition of 7,000 new language subtags, all else pales in
magnitude. But it also doesn't mean that every century would get its
variant; just that if someone can make a reasonable case that in one or more
languages a designation by century makes sense, then a variant for that
century could be encoded. It may even be the case that it is limited by
prefix, as 4646 requires.

And I didn't say that I was wedded to this idea, just that I have some
sympathy for it, to the point that it is worth exploring, not dismissing out
of hand without playing out the pros and cons.

> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list