Status?

[CE Whitehead]

Harald thinks for your info;
for me 1694acad is fine,; I would not change it now;
and for the other,
I am happy with
either 1606 or nict1606 or whatever you decide.

(technically these subtags are for variants of French:
to1606
[but that's confusing too as some people may think yes, all moyen francais 
up to 1606, though  it would be appropriate to include 15th century French 
at all--it's quite different]

and

to1694
[but 1694acad is not that bad though because that is a well-known 
dictionary])

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>
> > I am in favour of 1694acad and 1606nict too.
>
>Before this, the only similar subtags I know of are de-1901 and
>de-1996, used for the German orthography before and after the 1996
>spelling reform.  One difference then is that the German subtags
>only mention the year, and not the source of authority (Academy or
>other).  Has fr-1694 (and fr-1606) been considered as an
>alternative to fr-1694acad (and fr-1606nict) and what are the
>arguments for and against including "acad" (and nict) in the
>subtag?
>
>Let me emphasize that I have no opinion with regards to the French
>language.  I'm just observing and learning how this
>standardization process evolves, so that I can understand it if
>and when it were to be used for Scandinavian languages.
>
>
>--
>   Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
>   Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_________________________________________________________________
Get a FREE Web site, company branded e-mail and more from Microsoft Office 
Live! http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/mcrssaub0050001411mrt/direct/01/