Pending business

[Ihar Mahaniok]

sorry, one more clarification: both of those are just /spellings/, and
both of them can be written either Cyrillics or Latin; so both of
those are script-agnostic by default; just, by matter of fact, they
are overwhelmingly written in Cyrillic.

be-Cyrl-akadem, be-Cyrl-tarask, be-Latn-akadem, be-Latn-tarask are all
possible, though not necessary today, I believe.

On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Ihar Mahaniok <mahaniok at gmail.com> wrote:
> no, Doug,
>
> both those are Cyrillic, since both of them are "standard" way of
> writing Belarusian.
>
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:14 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>
>>> We have three outstanding registration requests, one for the "Academy"
>>> romanization of Belarusian (as distinct from Taraskievica), one for
>>> Pinyin (however that is defined), and one for Wade-Giles.
>>
>> Regarding Belarusian, for "romanization" please read "Latin-script
>> orthography."  I apologize for the error but trust everyone knew what I
>> meant.
>>
>> I got a private response:
>>
>>> IIUC both Taraskievica and "Academy" are Cyrillic orthographies for
>>> Belarusian, not Latin orthographies, thus not romanisations.
>>
>> Actually these are Latin orthographies; the "standard" way of writing
>> Belarusian is in Cyrillic.
>>
>> --
>> Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
>> http://www.ewellic.org
>> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ietf-languages mailing list
>> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>>
>