CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Sat Aug 30 16:05:58 CEST 2008

Hi, either [akademy] or [1959acad] satisfies the length requirement.     However, I see now Michael Everson's point that the academy could publish a very different standard in the future; so, unless the 2008 and 1959 versions are sufficiently different that you want to register both as separate versions sometime soon, I withdraw my earlier support of [akademy] (my goof). I guess a subtag name such as [rev2008]  ("revised 2008") could be used with [1959acad] if you at some point wanted to distinguish the 2008 variety from the 1959 variety. --C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at  Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at> Mark Davis wrote:>> I think the year is a bad idea, because from all I've heard the >>year >> is not a defining feature, and there are other years attached >> to other >> variants. Moreover, it will be just peculiar to have>>> be-acad1959-2008>>> for the 2008 version of "akademic Belarusian", as may be >> desired in >> the future.> Other differences aside, I consider impractical all variants > which are transliterated (akad*), unusually truncated (acade) > or cryptic (nsbexxwhatever). So, it "ought" to be the > "academy". And having to both denote the concrete revision > and to satisfy the 8 chars limit naturally makes it 1959acad. >-Yury
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list