acade - LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM

[Tracey, Niall]

CE Whitehead
> I think there are precendents for adding academy or akademy or
> akadem now and then adding in 1950 and 2008 or 2010 variants
> later (the Resian orthography subtags), but there are also
> precedents for doing things Yuri's way (adding two varieties,
> be-1959acad and be-2010acad (the 16th-17th century French subtags,
> 1694acad and 1606nict--the latter being troubling because it is so
> cryptic when in school I always learned 16eme siecle 17eme siecle,
> but . . . )

I don't see those as valid precedents, as those tags describe historical
varieties.
As they were never current during the lifespan of the standard, we
didn't encounter the problem of the nominal norm changing overnight.


Yury said:
> As I see it, you are just presupposing a certain architecture
> of the search system(s) which *would* dictate the need of a
> certain metadata structure.

I am not suggesting that this is the *only* architecture that will
exist, nor am I suggesting that it is a *good* architecture. I am simply
saying that we can confidently predict that such systems *will* exist,
and an explicit hierarchy can pre-emptively address the problems this
would cause.

In fact, I'd say that defining a metadata structure with minimal
redundancy presupposes a certain (efficient) architecture, when defining
one with substantial redundancy presupposes nothing.

This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(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 recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.