CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Wed May 2 21:27:37 CEST 2007

Jaska Zedlik
sub at
>I don't really think, that they are "VERY different". The difference
>between them are mainly in non-specified then rules and in the
>orthography of foreign words, because it was not relevant in 1929. And
>this difference is certainly less than between 2005 version and the
>official orthography.

Then the way you have the comments is fine!  If there is litte difference 
between the two versions, enough so that no one would prefer to get one 
version or another, no need to distinguish the two.

(There's plenty of the more modern version on the web so obviously the 
subtag is for that primarily.)

Regarding the two forms, the 'classical' and the 'official:'

Whatever Gerard says happens for be without specifying a particular variant 
must be the case at;  I do not know what is the case for the 
web in general;
I think it is up to the users of the 'official' version of the orthography 
to decide whether or not they need to register a variant, or leave things as 
they are.

So long as people get served the content they want in the orthography they 
want the way the subtags are , all will be well, and there will be no need 
for any change till things are otherwise in cyberspace.  (Cyberspace has its 
own rules.)

(And, of course, we must wait a bit till the date the browsers and such 
incorporate the new subtags into their functioning before we can see what 
will happen; indeed, I have not been able to get even standard scripts to 
display correctly at the library computer here--even if I tag the language 
and script correctly-- the display here is at the whim of the computer 
settings, has nothing to do with tagging, and the one best way to get 
content in the spellings I want is to type in words in the spellings I want 
and hope they come up.)

Take care,

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at

Don’t quit your job – Take Classes Online and Earn your Degree in 1 year. 
Start Today!

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list