Proposal for a subtag registration (fr-2004-ORTOGRAF or fr-ortograf ?)

Doug Ewell dewell at
Wed Dec 12 16:50:20 CET 2007

Mario Périard <mario underscore periard at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> How many is the rule?

"Enough to persuade the Reviewer that the variation is used outside its 
creator's direct influence."

That's my own interpretation, not a quote from any document, but I'll 
bet it's close to what the Reviewer intended.

> Louis Rougnon-Glasson suggest a new characters to note sounds witch 
> are currently represented by 2 or 3 letters. I agree on this point of 
> view for the future.To keep things simple, our project can be seen as 
> ortograf 1.0 and the Louis' project could be ortograf 2.0.

That's the best reason I can possibly think of why 'ortograf' should NOT 
be the subtag value.

> I would have been so vain to suggest a subtag with my name  ;-) 
> ortograf or montreal2004 is enough for me.

I understand and appreciate your effort not to be vain.  My reason for 
preferring 'periard' as the subtag is that it uniquely identifies the 
orthography better than the others mentioned:

* 'ortograf' could refer to two different initiatives called Ortograf, 
as you just described.

* 'montreal' implies regional usage with Montréal, which is not what 
distinguishes the orthography.

* '2004' tends to imply a reform which took place in 2004, with "new" 
orthography replacing "old," as indicated by the tags "de-1901" and 
"de-1996".  The usefulness of years as variant subtags is IMHO greatly 
overstated.  In the German case there was little choice (except for 
something like 'revised', which brings the usual problems), and in the 
case of CE Whitehead's French subtags they convey some sense of 
historical perspective, but most of the time they are just inscrutable 

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list