Gwich'in (was: Re: language tag en-cutspell)
dewell at adelphia.net
Thu Jun 22 22:00:55 CEST 2006
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
> I hardly have time with all the other hundreds of
> messages that go on on this list. I still can't
> believe you want to use an acute accent in
I do? Check the archives (if you have time) of either this list or the
LTRU list. I complained repeatedly about the silliness of using an
acute accent as an apostrophe, in the process of compiling the initial
But I also asked LTRU whether the Description field was supposed to copy
the ISO standard directly, or whether we were supposed to fix spellings
or add alternative usages or perform ASCII folding or what. And the
consensus came back, follow the ISO standard, even when it has something
silly like *Gwich´in. And that is what I did -- follow the consensus.
That was my job, as editor of a document produced by a Working Group.
In the past two weeks the subject of descriptions in general, and
Gwich'in in particular, have come up, and once again -- despite the fact
that I do "know better" than to use U+00B4 as an apostrophe, or modifier
letter, or whatever it is in Gwich'in -- there is NO clear consensus
that the descriptions in the Registry should deviate from the ISO
standard. My personal preference would be to use the ASCII apostrophe,
which everyone can type, exists in every character set since BCDIC, and
unequivocally identifies the language. But my personal preference is
not all that matters.
As I said on LTRU on 2005-04-24: "But you need to understand that the
registry is not just a reflection of what I'd like to see. Its contents
need to be determined on the basis of stable, defensible rules, applied
to references that people trust, devised by authorities that are in a
position to devise them."
Fullerton, California, USA
More information about the Ietf-languages