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

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Thu Dec 14 01:06:59 CET 2006

Thanks, Stephane, and Michael!
The variants based on centuries are important to me since the language of 
those time periods seems readily distinguishable from the language spoken in 
other time periods.

The century borders are mnemonic, easily understood, and do seem to help 
distinguish the French varieties more clearly.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

>"On Wed, Dec 13, 2006 at 12:11:49PM +0000,
>  Michael Everson <everson at> wrote
>  a message of 101 lines which said:
> > >But it also doesn't mean that every century would get its variant;
> >
> > Why on earth not? Century-based subtags would obviously be part of a 
>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).
>I suggest to comment his proposal based on what he requested, not
>based on assumptions about where they *may* lead.
> > 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.
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at

Share your latest news with your friends with the Windows Live Spaces 
friends module.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list