Reshat Sabiq's requests for two Tatar orthographic variants

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Sun Jan 7 22:31:24 CET 2007

I'll support option 2 then if that is the one IETF likes but with a specific 
name for the tags (from option 1 perhaps), a statement that they are  tags 
for script variants (if that is what they are), and a list of the languages 
each applies to!

With an understanding that the list can be updated!

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

>Reshat wrote:
> > i've listed the categories of possible choices to organize the options:
> > 1) per-language (janalif for tt, canalip for kk, year for others)
> > 2) one variant for all Turkic languages: i'm going to make it easy for
> > you and remove the variance from 2) by suggesting the following variant
> > for all Turkic languages: NTA
> > 3) one variant for all 70 languages: i suggested ussrlatn, and there was
> > another suggested form of ussr1928.
> > Now let me ask you folks 2 questions:
> > a. Am i correct in concluding that this list is not inclined to option
> > 3) above?
>I'm not yet sure, what other (apparently non-Turkic) languages are you
>talking about ?  Your option (2) appears to be better defined, and it's
>also more directly related to what you really want.  But otherwise it's
>IMO okay to register a variant with some prefixes, later adding more
>prefixes as needed - probably not all 70, purely theoretical constructs
>aren't relevant for the language subtag registry, it's no encyclopedia.
> > If so, i suggest this list considers NTA as the first matter of 
> > if it's approved, it automatically covers janalif, canalip, and 1) in
> > general, but of course it only covers Turkic languages. If not, we fail
> > back to option 1). But the 2 are really tied together.
>Fine, you can have variants of variants for this (2) before (1) approach.

Thanks for clarifying this Frank!

> > b. Do we want to make a preliminary decision on 1) vs. 2) first, and
> > then i submit a request for formal voting, or do you want me to submit
> > the replacement request for ussrlatn now?
>There's no "formal voting", but a "formal request", an "open discussion",
>and eventually Michael's "final decision".  Plus an appeal procedure, or
>an improved new request if the request was rejected.
>JFTR, if you register "whatever" as variant for tt (e.g. prefix tt-Latn),
>you can't later reduce this to prefix tt-Latn-newturka resulting in tags
>tt-Latn-newturka-whatever.  On the other hand if you register "newturka"
>with (among others) prefix tt-Latn, you can later add "whatever" with a
>prefix tt-Latn-newturka.
>The reason for this rule in 4646 are the potential tags tt-Latn-whatever
>created before the introduction of newturka, it's okay to make the set
>of permitted prefixes larger, it's not okay to remove permitted prefixes.
Thanks Frank, that is right; it's best to ask for some specific subtags and 
specific things it applies to!

Thanks for explaining this better than I did.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

The MSN Entertainment Guide to Golden Globes is here.  Get all the scoop.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list