Doug Ewell dewell at
Tue May 8 15:45:59 CEST 2007

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

> Hi, I just wanted to clarify the formation of subtags for the variant 
> tarask (see below):
> Would the correct tags for the tarask variant then be??:
> be-tarask  { Classical, Cyrillic Script }
> (= be-Cyrl-tarask )


> be-latn-tarask  {Classical, Latin Script}

No, there is no such thing.

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


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

Yes ("be-Latn" is canonical casing).

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

The script subtag must always go before the variant, so these are not 
well-formed.  (I assume "be-" was to be prefixed to each, otherwise they 
are even less well-formed.)

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list