Request for variant subtag fr 16th-c 17th-c RESUBMISSION

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Thu Jan 25 22:34:32 CET 2007

Hi, Addison, IETF; quoting from Addison's last email:
>Although your description is, in fact, "descriptive" and is not, in fact, 
>illegal, it is also not in the style or practice of the rest of the 
>registry. The description is, in fact, a human-readable identifier and is 
>non-normative. RFC4646 says (in part) about it the following:
>The 'Description' field is used for identification purposes and SHOULD NOT 
>be taken to represent the actual native name of the
">language or variation or to be in any particular language. Most
>descriptions are taken directly from source standards such as ISO 639 or 
>ISO 3166.

Thanks for quoting this here!

Here is the text I found:


      *  Description's field-value contains a non-normative description
         of the subtag or tag.


  " 2.   Values in the 'Description' field MUST NOT be changed in a way
         that would invalidate previously-existing tags.  They MAY be
         broadened somewhat in scope, changed to add information, or
         adapted to the most common modern usage.  For example, countries
         occasionally change their official names; a historical example
         of this would be "Upper Volta" changing to "Burkina Faso"."

"The 'Description' field is used for identification purposes"

It's not clear from this what the length of the description should be; I 
feel that perhaps a reference to the dictionary is still in order!  But it 
is up to IETF!  to you all!

>RFC 4646 goes on to say about the Comments field:
>Comments contain additional information about the subtag, as deemed 
>appropriate for understanding the registry and implementing language tags 
>using the subtag or tag.

Thanks for quoting this.  This is what I found too!  Also:

"The content of this field is not
   restricted, except by the need to register the information, the
   suitability of the request, and by reasonable practical size

Don't know what that means about its size!
>How about:
>Description: Early Modern French

I think you might add here:

"as catalogued in the "Dictionnaire de l'acad?me fran?oise", 4eme ed. 1694"

or alternately insert:
"(essentially 17th century)"
between ??  "Early Modern" and "French"

But no one liked using the century!!

>Comments: early modern French as catalogued in the
>   "Dictionnaire de l'acad?me fran?oise", 4eme ed. 1694;
>   includes elements of Middle French
and may also include
>  new terms from the Americas
This is fine!  Thank you for your suggesting a comment!  Note I inserted one 
more bit of text:
"and may also include"

>The part about which book is being used as the exemplar or cornerstone of 
>the subtag makes a useful comment, necessary to understanding the registry 
>entry and implementing tages based on it. But it isn't the essence of the 

>From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to the 
Academy Awards®

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list