Last call: 1926baku
"Reshat Sabiq (Reşat)"
tatar.iqtelif.i18n at gmail.com
Wed Apr 18 06:46:48 CEST 2007
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Frank Ellermann yazmış:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>>> How about:
>>> Description: Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet
>> Sounds good to me.
> Same here, but I'd keep "Historical" in the description:
> | Description: Historical Unified Turkic Latin Alphabet
I'd like to not jinx it at the last moment after these long
deliberations, so i re-posted my edition at:
I tried to make it concise, informative and reflective of latest
findings in our several long threads.
I know there are 2 sentences each in comments and intended meaning, but
considering that we are talking about 10 languages, and a very
convoluted subject, i think it's not excessive. Also, i'm not sure if
intended meaning info goes anywhere, so length of that section might not
In my opinion, in some cases year might be more prominent, and then i'd
say year should go first, in other cases year might be secondary, and
then i'd say year should go last. For this subtag, i believe the latter
is the case, so i vote for baku1926.
My public GPG key (ID 0x262839AF) is at: http://keyserver.veridis.com:11371
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v220.127.116.11 (Cygwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the Ietf-languages