CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Mon May 7 20:09:20 CEST 2007

Hi, I just wanted to clarify the formation of subtags for the variant tarask 
(see below):

Doug Ewell dewell at wrote:

>Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>>The point of Suppress-Script is to guide users about when not to
>>include a script subtag for compatibility with RFC 3066
>>implementations. For Belarusian, this takes the form of a
>>Suppress-Script of Cyrl, since most Belarusian documents are written
>>in this script.

>No RFC 3066 implementation is going to understand the subtag 'tarask'
>anyway, in any position, because it is not part of any registered tag.


Frank Ellermann nobody at
Sun May 6 17:07:03 CEST 2007
>Right to left matching would
>miss "better" matches language + region if there's a script, as
>it would miss language + variant if there's a script or region.

Would the correct tags for the tarask variant then be??:

be-tarask  { Classical, Cyrillic Script }
(= be-Cyrl-tarask )

be-latn-tarask  {Classical, Latin Script}

be  {official, Cyrillic Script, for now}
(= be-Cyrl )

be-latn  {official, Latin Script, for now}

But never use tarask-Cyrl or tarask-Latn as these probably can not be 
matched to
any other tag using be , including be-tarask???

(I see tarask is now in the registry!!!)


cewcathar at

Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list