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

Michael Everson everson at
Wed Dec 13 17:11:49 CET 2006

At 15:45 +0100 2006-12-13, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

>Whitehead proposed a *specific* proposal: encoding *two* variants of 
>French. As far as I understand, he never suggested to encode a 
>*generic* mechanism of variants-based-on-century (which would not 
>please the muslims or the jews, I believe).

We already have codes for varieties of French.


French, Middle (ca. 1400-1600)

French, Old (842- ca. 1400)

>I suggest to comment his proposal based on what he requested, not 
>based on assumptions about where they *may* lead.

We have to take generativeness into account.

>  > And I have argued that arbitrary calendar cutoffs don't make sense.
>>  1x00-1x99? Why not 1x50-1y11?
>Again, I do not think that Whitehead was suggesting to always encode
>variants based on centuries. He suggested that the century borders are
>more or less significant for French in this period.

How much more? How much less? Is "frm" just to be divided into 
early/middle/late based on date?
Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list