jjc at hpl.hp.com
Mon Apr 30 11:37:05 CEST 2007
Lars Aronsson wrote:
> It is peculiar (to me) already that "be-tarask" is registered
> without also registering a subtag for the other, official version
> of Belarusian.
I can weakly infer
And equally if I want to explicitly mark "be-Cyrl" I can.
I take that to be the apple, and "be-tarask" as the pear.
(But, like you I know nothing about Belarusian, and I am glad this
discussion is essentially over)
As for the other variations on -tarask that you identify, our current
information is that the crucial need at the moment is to distinguish
be-tarask from be (or be-Cyrl if my analysis above is correct). If and
when we have feedback from the Belarusian community that they need to
distinguish at a finer level, then perhaps we will have registration
forms for the finer grain variations. if this happens, we may need to
broaden some of the fields to make it clear that be-tarask includes all
of the minor variants that the current intent seems to cover. But I for
one, hope that it happens after I've moved on from this list.
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England
More information about the Ietf-languages