Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c
cowan at ccil.org
Wed Dec 13 17:57:52 CET 2006
Michael Everson scripsit:
> Is it possible to describe these language variants without using
Diffidently (being neither francophone nor Romance-ologist) I suggest
that all this is a result of taking the dates in 639-2 too seriously.
The definition of Middle vs. Modern French is primarily an internal
one, not an external chronological one. If a document is readily
intelligible to current francophones, it's effectively Modern French;
if not, it's effectively Middle. Therefore, my advice is to use
the dates as a rough guideline only.
If French people in the New World were writing what looks more like
Middle than Modern French during the 16th century, tag it as frm;
if some earlier French is relatively modern, tag it as fr. If you
are worried about undue constriction of search, use both.
> Do members of this group think that century subtags are a good idea?
I think they come under the same category as the geographical subtags
that we already rejected.
Only do what only you can do. John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>
--Edsger W. Dijkstra's advice
to a student in search of a thesis
More information about the Ietf-languages