LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Eastern Armenian
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Fri Sep 1 21:37:28 CEST 2006
Having commented on the generic tag issue, I now move to possible variant
> Thus I would propose
> the following:
On reflection (woman's prerogative to change her mind - especially whilst
playing catch-up after 9 days away - sorry Michael I missed your proposal on
first scan read of emails :-)) I retract my proposal and support Michael's
At 21:13 +0100 2006-08-31, Michael Everson wrote:
>hy-arevemda could be used for Western Armenian
arevemda has 8 characters
>hy-arevela could be used for Eastern Armenian
arevela has 7 characters
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Garside
> Sent: 01 September 2006 18:30
> To: 'Addison Phillips'; 'Michael Everson'; 'Mark Davis'; 'Don Osborn'
> Cc: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> Subject: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Eastern Armenian
> I agree with Addisons post in most areas. However, I think
> that the discussion on generic terms (eastern, western,
> northern etc..) could be quite endless.
> Don has on several occasions asked how this will impact on
> the possible inclusion of ISO 639-6 and I think that any real
> discussion with regard to dialects would necessarily have to
> include discussion of ISO 639-6. I think that to have this
> discussion at this stage would be counter productive in
> facilitating the tags that Mark has requested within an
> acceptable timescale.
> I would opt for non-generic tags in this instance and take
> this discussion to the LTRU (once re-chartered) as part of
> the discussion surrounding dialects and ISO 639-6.
> I think that Michael's comment wrt "en-western" "en-eastern"
> highlight the probable problems that would be encountered by
> the introduction of such generic terms and one has to think
> of the precedents being set here.
> Peter's original suggestion is perhaps the way forward; it is
> not beautiful John but it does the job. Thus I would propose
> the following:
> Best regards
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Addison
> > Phillips
> > Sent: 01 September 2006 17:28
> > To: Michael Everson
> > Cc: ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: Eastern Armenian
> > >
> > > That argument doesn't take you very far, given BYZANTINE MUSICAL
> > > SYMBOL DIESIS APLI DYO DODEKATA.
> > I think the argument about the form of the subtag is not
> very useful
> > in its present form. With proposals for "eastern" and
> "western", the
> > issue we face is, in my opinion, quite important and should
> be dealt
> > with
> > directly:
> > 1. We have historical precedent for subtags restricted to a
> > dialect. Witnesss 'nedis' and 'rozaj' in the current registry.
> > 2. We do not have a history of registering "generic" subtags.
> > Although 'eastern' and 'western' would initially indicate Armenian
> > dialects, it is quite clear that these subtags could have
> > Prefix fields added which would indicate other, unrelated,
> dialects of
> > other languages.
> > It seems clear to me that there are distinct entities of some sort
> > that Mark needs to tag. The question before us is whether we should
> > expand on precedent and register semi-generic subtags or
> continue the
> > existing practice of registering very specific subtags for very
> > specific purposes.
> > Personally, I do not support truly generic subtags ('eastern'
> > with no Prefix at all), since I think those subtags would lead to
> > undesirable tag choices and confusion about tag choice.
> > I therefore think that, given current practice, we should
> not register
> > 'eastern' and 'western' at this time, but we should
> register subtags
> > (perhaps Michael's suggested ones) with the "same meaning" to meet
> > Mark's needs.
> > I think the argument about how Mark has chosen to
> split/lump dialects
> > is a chimera: nothing says that competing subtags could not be
> > registered that split Armenian in a "different direction" (possibly
> > for a different application).
> > If Mark feels that semi-generic subtags are actually necessary and
> > that Armenian dialects are just a useful test case, then I think we
> > should have a full-fledged discussion of what the
> guidelines ought to
> > be for their adoption and use.
> > The use case for semi-generic subtags, in my mind, is not
> proved by a
> > single case. What we need are four or five languages (exact
> number not
> > important) that indicate how eastern/western or northern/southern
> > would work in practice.
> > Also: what happens if we have "tlh-western" and a new subdialect
> > "fooish" is registered. Do we do "tlh-western-fooish" or
> > Best Regards,
> > Addison
> > --
> > Addison Phillips
> > Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
> > Internationalization is an architecture.
> > It is not a feature.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages