be-tarask

[Jeremy Carroll]

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.


At
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry

I read:

Type: language
Subtag: be
Description: Belarusian
Added: 2005-10-16
Suppress-Script: Cyrl

Thus, from
xml:lang="be"
I can weakly infer
xml:lang="be-Cyrl"

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.


Jeremy




-- 
Hewlett-Packard Limited
registered Office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN
Registered No: 690597 England