Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Wed Feb 21 21:35:39 CET 2007

Hi, I really think there is no problem with


if that is what Reshat still prefers; the software will be able to recognize 
nta1926 after we create the subtag, whether or not we all know what nta 
stands for.

Otherwise if everyone is for


(or some variation; Michael suggested [unifturk])

and Reshat does not object, I'll go for that too.

But, if Reshat expresses a preference for anything else

(such as [baku1926])

that is what I will support.

We could also have in theory:


(Unified Turkish Alphabet 1926)

or even


(New Unified Turkish Alphabet 1926; "New Unified . . . " is the complete 
name; I see no problem with "new" because by including here also the year, 
1926, it's clear that it was new in the year 1926;
but of course nuta1926 may seem strange to humans,
but machines should have no problems with it I guess.)

So basically my vote is to second Reshat's preference.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

>Certanly unifturk rather than uniturk
>Michael Everson *
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at

bakulef (for baku alphabet)

Refi Now: Rates near 39yr lows!  $430,000 Mortgage for $1,399/mo - Calculate 
new payment

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list