Ihar Mahaniok mahaniok at
Wed Aug 27 17:40:03 CEST 2008

Was 1959 revision more important than 1933 and 2008 revisions?

And, the problem I see with this proposal is that it is unclear (from
the tag itself) whether it is supposed to cover 2008 revision as well
or not.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Yury Tarasievich
<yury.tarasievich at> wrote:
> John Cowan wrote:
>> Yury Tarasievich scripsit:
>>> What's the problem with comparatively more stable "-academy"?
>> The problem is that there are other language academies for other
>> languages, and we want a subtag specifically for the orthography
>> prescribed by the Belarusian Academy, not any other academy.  We do
>> not register "generic" subtags that mean different things for different
>> languages; for example, many languages have a Northern dialect, but we
>> would register separate subtags for each, not a generic subtag "northern".
> I wonder. First, umbrella "-tarask" is approved. Now the clear enough
> situation is nitpicked. Is registry there to foresee all possible
> occurences, or it's there to approve a descriptive subtag?
> And we aren't talking about some obscure dialect here, we are discussing
> the only literary recognized norm of the state language (laws, school,
> documents, blah blah). Did it occur to anyone that in the majority of
> the Belarusian  language practice there's just no true need for such
> distinctions?
> Well, make it "1959acad" (that's cliche' enough to be readily
> recognized), and let's be done with it.
> Or possibly it's the request itself that's bogus and unrealistic.
> -Yury
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list