Variant tags for sl-rozaj: History and preliminaries

[Doug Ewell]

Harald Alvestrand <harald at alvestrand dot no> wrote:

>> This boils down to the following list of variant tags to be proposed, in 
>> order of urgency:
>>
>> - major dialects
>> biske
>> njiva
>> osojs
>> solba
>>
>> - standardized orthography
>> 1994
>>
> This part worries me a bit. Is it the intention to allow a tag like 
> "sl-rojaz-1994-biske" or "sl-rojaz-biske-1994", or is the intent that only 
> "sl-rojaz-1994" should be used?

Since "biske" represents a dialect and "1994" an orthography, it makes sense 
that the two could be used individually or together.  This would not be the 
case for two variants that both represent a variant (like "biske" and 
"njiva") or both represent an orthography (like German "1901" and "1996").

> Any time we add more tag-generating rules (instead of just tags), my 
> nerves twitch.

The rules are already in place in 4646.  Han seems to have a good 
understanding of them, and will apparently be proposing "1994" with a full 
set of Prefix fields.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages