acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[Mark Davis]

> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the
NSAB variant so that an additional subtag
Yes, adding the year is not the right answer. If people want a tag that is
obscured, we might as well use 'akad1234'; we shouldn't use a year because
there is no intention of *excluding* other years.
> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the
NSAB variant so that an additional subtag
This is incorrect. "be" means *ANY* "be", tarask or akademic, whatever year.
In order to specify the academy version and only the academy version (not
including tarask), we have to have a tag.

Mark


On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 4:39 PM, CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi!
> Mark Davis's solution is a solution I'd favor--we could add subtags 1959
> and 2008 later on -- and then if the people who requested the [tarask]
> subtag want pre-1933 and post-1933 distinctions they can request those as
> well later on.  However, if Yury is o.k. about having two subtags now . . .
> I leave it up to him.
>
> However Yuri is right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB
> variant so that an additional subtag is not necessary I suppose; however if
> there is about an equal amount of content online in both variants, this
> asymmetrical tagging system might be confusing to some content authors
> (although applications should not have a problem with this)
>
> It should of course, as Yuri has insisted, be a subtag name that makes
> sense to Yuri and other users of this variety, if a subtag is necessary.
>
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com
>
>
>
> From: "Doug Ewell"
> > Yury Tarasievich  wrote:
> >>> What is vague about 'tarask'? Is there more than one orthography
> >>> commonly known as "Taraskievica"?
> >> So you missed this part. Yes, at least two: 2005 (Viachorka's project
> >> with changed alphabet) and not-2005. And "not-2005" may be partitioned
> >> at least once: "pre-1933 and direct derivatives" and the modern
> >> re-creations which are defined (by academic Padluzhny) as a
> >> "contamination (ling.) of academic lit. norm with some of the
> >> pre-reform features".
> >Are the variations so different that it would be inappropriate to use one
> subtag to
> > refer to all of them? What about the different versions of the Academy
> orthography?> The important taggable difference seems to be between the
> Academy and
> > Taraskievica orthographies, not between sub-varieties of either.
> > --Doug Ewell
>
> From: "Mark Davis"
> > I think it is a bad idea to use years, since clearly people use the
> terms"akademic"
> > and "taraskievica" as broad contrastive groupings, and within each of
> those there
> > may be distinct variants where it would make sense to have years
> attached.  If later> on someone really thinks that it is necessary to
> separate those subvariants, that can> always be done. See
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry
> > where we have such fine distinctions as: sl-rozaj-biske-1994
> > Mark
> This is a solution I'd favor--we could add subtags 1959 and 2008 later on
> and then if the people who requested the [tarask] subtag want pre-1933 and
> post-1933 distinctions they can request those as well.  However, if Yury is
> happy having two subtags now  .  .  . this should be his call.
>
>
>
> from: Yury Tarasievich
> > Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> >> Given that this will be the label for the official orthography of the
> >> Belarus language, given that there are strong objections to
> >> the proposed label. Given that this list is not a group of "folks" that
> do>> things  without consideration of the consequences, it matters a lot
> >> what the end result will be.
> > Well, it's no secret that the last year "be-tarask" request was aimed
> > for some sort of "official" recognition of the entity.  This here request
> is
> > filed by one of the same people and is, as I see it, aimed for some sort
> > of "demotion" of academical, official norm ("you will not enjoy the pure
> > be code, too"; cf. the last year discussion posts ca. May 2 or so).
>
> Yuri, I think that the request for a subtag [be-tarask] was appropriate
> since there was content on the internet in that orthography; we have
> approved subtags for a number of variant orthographies--and have subtags for
> some of the variations in English spelling too.  In assigning subtags, as I
> understand things (correct me if I am wrong), variant subtags are assigned
> when there is enough content on the internet in a particular variant and
> that distinguishing that variant will enable (hopefully, someday, when the
> applications catch up to the subtags) people who want content in that
> particular variant to request it; the assignment of such subtags will enable
> spelling checkers to check the spelling of content in that variant.  That's
> all a subtag means; it has not so much to do with official recognition, in
> my opinion, as it has to do with whether there is content out there that
> some people want distinguished.
>
> But you are right; since [be-tarask] is now distinguished from the NSAB
> variant so that an additional subtag is not necessary I suppose; however if
> there is about an equal amount of content online in both variants, this
> asymmetrical tagging system might be confusing to some content authors
> (although applications should not have a problem with this)
> > Now, the idea of the new subtag is overwhelmingly supported >here.While I
> just do not understand the urging need (looking from
> > Belarus), I'm fine with it, as long as it isn't something indescriptive,
> > incomprehensible, silly or abusive.
> Yes, it should be a subtag name that makes sens to you and other users of
> this variety, if a subtag is necessary.
>
> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080828/363ab599/attachment-0001.htm