Ihar Mahaniok mahaniok at
Wed Aug 27 19:50:32 CEST 2008

ok, then it doesn't make sense to introduce year into this subtag
(another subtag with the year may be made if it is needed at some
point), since the new subtag should follow current "academic" variant.

so, I think be-akadem (trimmed romanization of "academic") is good here.

On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:11 PM, Yury Tarasievich
<yury.tarasievich at> wrote:
> Ihar Mahaniok wrote:
>> 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.
> Obviously, it does not cover 2008 revision, which is yet to be
> introduced in 2010.
> -Yury
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list