be-tarask language subtag registration form
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sat Mar 31 01:51:48 CEST 2007
You will have read what John Cowan wrote. Even the naming of these
orthographies is a minefield.
In a nutshell, the <http://be.wikipedia.org>be.wikipedia.org was high
jacked by the people who favour the "old" orthography. They prevented
the usage of the official orthography. This resulted in a request for
a new wikipedia for the official orthography. The Wikimedia
Foundation does not allow for politically motivated projects. The
current status is that there is a
<http://be.wikipedia.org>be.wikipedia.org that does allow for the
official orthography. There is a
<http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org>be-x-old.wikipedia.org that contains
the old wikipedia content.
We hope that these people find themselves a solution. Applying for a
code here will not bring them an ISO-639 code. This has been
formulated as a requirement for a language to be recognised within
the Wikimedia Foundation.
On 3/31/07, Michael Everson
<<mailto:everson at evertype.com>everson at evertype.com> wrote:
Could you summarize this more clearly? There are too may "this
orthography"s here and I am not sure what you are saying.
At 01:28 +0200 2007-03-31, GerardM wrote:
>On the Wikimedia Foundation there has been an extended politically
>oriented struggle where the proponents of this "orthography"
>prevented the official Belarus orthography from being used. This
>resulted in a request to get a new project for the official Belarus
>The Wikimedia Foundation language committee was asked to deal with
>this. This resulted in the renaming of what used to be the
><http://be-x-old.wikipedia.org>be-x-old.wikipedia.org . The
>official orthography was given the
>Based on the information that was in front of us, we did not request
>a tag for this orthography because the original orthography that was
>in use has to have been infused with many new words in order to be
>usable in a modern setting. Also the information we had suggested
>that this "orthography" is a recent invention that is politically
>motivated. The notion that this is reflecting a historic orthography
>is imho a wrong.
>Given that the differences between the two orthographies are minor;
>less than the differences between British and American English, the
>language committee wants the two groups to work together in one
>project. This would prevent two biased projects. An other argument
>to deny a separate project is that the allocation of languages is
>done based on ISO-639 codes. This requested code does not qualify.
>On 3/31/07, Michael Everson
><<mailto:<mailto:everson at evertype.com>everson at evertype.com><mailto:everson at evertype.com>everson at evertype.com>
>Is there another orthography of Belarusian that we need to know about
>in order to evaluate this?
>Michael Everson *
>Ietf-languages mailing list
><mailto:<mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no><mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
Michael Everson * <http://www.evertype.com>http://www.evertype.com
Ietf-languages mailing list
<mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages