Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen at
Thu Aug 28 10:49:47 CEST 2008

The Wikimedia Foundation will not accept a new project for an orthography.
The reason why we have the is because the Belarus
Wikipedia was high jacked and there was no way that these people wanted to
be inclusive in one Belarus language project.

For new languages according to the current language policy accept only one
project and they have to be inclusive of dialects, orthographies and

Consequently the code that should be used for Belarus would be "be". What is
being discussed is using what will be the hierarchical nature that will
become available with the ISO-639-6. Belarus has written language. Belarus
written language has orthographies. Orthographies have iterations.

In my opinion, the official Belarus language is not different from the Dutch
language; it also has multiple orthographies and we do not restrict Dutch to
one iteration of the official orthography. Consequently the inclusion of a
year in the code gives the wrong impression. The impression should be that
this is the official orthography. This idea is not conveyed by calling it
academic either.


On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Michael Everson <everson at>wrote:

> On 27 Aug 2008, at 16:40, 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.
> In my opinion if there is only to be ONE subtag for this it should be for
> the one that you could make a spell-checker or Wikipedia with. I'd have no
> problem with three of them, if each pointed to an authoritative dictionary
> or grammar.
> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list