Fwd: acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Tue Aug 26 16:28:43 CEST 2008
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> By referring to the organisation that defines it, you do not indicate
> what this orthography is about. It is not equal to the other orthography
> recently recognised by this body, it is superior in its use because this
> is the only orthography taught in school. It is for this reason that the
> label "official" would be better.
Oh no. Labelling something "official" doesn't tell us *anything* about
it, only about its timestamp-bound status. Even something like
"1959acad" would be better than that.
And how come referring to Academy "isn't indicating what's this about"?
It indicates it's about solid and careful scientifical work, whatever
the politicos say.
On a side note, I too find the academic norm wanting in several aspects
and would like to see some changes, but I also agree that better "safe
> Again, given the political nature of this request, it is better to ask
> the "academy" involved or the Belarus government for their opinion and
> defer to it.
Didn't I suggest something like that in my 1st post? Is such request
even going to be considered, though?
More information about the Ietf-languages