Variant tags for sl-rozaj: standardized Resian

CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Mon Jul 9 18:09:32 CEST 2007

Doug Ewell dewell at
Sat Jul 7 20:47:08 CEST 2007


>I'm a little concerned about registering a language variant that, as Dr. 
>Steenwijk notes, "was created by the author of this request."  I don't 
>believe such a request has ever been made before.  In Wikipedia (which we 
>are not) this would probably count as "original research," and someone else 
>unconnected with Dr. Steenwijk would have to write the article, or in our 
>case, propose the subtag.  Right now I support this request, but I wonder 
>if others are concerned about this "original research" issue.
>Dr. Steenwijk did point out that the orthography has been adopted by 
>"several authors" and on public signage, which makes it more of an existing 
>standard than other orthographies, and which makes me feel better about the 

If any of the various persons/groups who have adopted the tag are able to 
send an email to this list in its support, it would be helpful, but so long 
as this orthography is in use, it needs a subtag.
>I don't have any problem at all with the structure of this subtag, 
>including its proposed prefixes:
>Prefix: sl-rozaj
>Prefix: sl-rozaj-biske
>Prefix: sl-rozaj-njiva
>Prefix: sl-rozaj-osojs
>Prefix: sl-rozaj-solba
>but I suspect someone may come along and argue that three levels of 
>variants (rozaj-biske-1994) is too many, and may want to introduce a new 
>Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

I do not have any problem with the number of prefixes; if there are that 
many prefixes for a single orthography, why then there are (it's because 
this is a standard; I do however wonder if it's probably closer to one of 
the variants that is encompassed by the various prefixes).

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list