No subject

Fri Jun 13 15:57:40 CEST 2008

"The "academic" (normative, literary) form, existing in a relatively unchan=
ged form for 75 years,"

This states (assumptively) that all variations on the standard (academy) fo=
rm are very slight. There is quite a number of languages where variant tags=
 haven't been requested for orthographic revisions because in most cases, n=
o-one cares. Some people stick by the old rules, but everyone understands e=
ach other. In fact, some people mix conventions, so it would often be impos=
sible to tag it either way. I suspect that this will be the case with the N=
SAD Belarusian standards. =

OK, so if it's not -tarask it's going to be (close to) one of the academy's=
 forms, but you're spinning this one rather heavily. Mark wants a closed se=
t of very closely related variants to be explicitly marked as a family.

Now I ask you -- if we go to the point of classifying to a particular editi=
on of the rule book, what do we do if someone breaks the rules? How many sp=
elling mistakes do we have to make to not be using that language/variant?

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipi=
ent(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information =
and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to=
, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipien=
t then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies=
 and inform the sender. Thank you.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list