Michael Everson everson at
Fri Aug 29 23:21:33 CEST 2008

On 29 Aug 2008, at 01:05, Mark Davis wrote:

> 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.

The year does not "exclude" other years. It refers to a particular  
orthography, defined in a particular source or set of sources. The  
year is not calendrical.

> "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.

Since there is more than one academy version the requirement is for  
greater precision. We went over this at very great length when we  
dealt with older orthographies for French, and in my judgement the  
principles we agreed there should apply here.

Michael Everson *

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list