BCP47 Appeals process
mark at macchiato.com
Thu Sep 18 13:08:56 CEST 2008
The request is for the broad tag (#1).
On Thu, Sep 18, 2008 at 7:56 AM, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
> Hi -
> > From: "Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>
> > To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:24 PM
> > Subject: Re: BCP47 Appeals process
> > Anyway, if we are talking precedent, the French subtags are happily
> > using "generic" "year-acad" subtags, as far as I know. I'll have yet to
> > see good reason for Belarusian ones to not to.
> I think the heart of the question is this: how broadly or narrowly does the
> requester want to categorize these variants? Specific possibilities
> - a fairly broad subtag covering all varieties of Belarusian that have
> at one time or another been "blessed" by the academy. For this case,
> it makes sense to *not* include the year.
> - a fairly narrow subtag covering only a specific variety of
> as defined by the academy at some specific point in time. For this,
> it clearly makes sense to include the year.
> - a subtag covering multiple, but not all, varieties "blessed" in the
> present, or future by the academy.
> There currently are no "generic" year subtags. All the "year" subtags have
> prefix fields binding them to a specific language. Though there is no
> formal prohibition against doing "generic" variants, there has been a
> marked reluctance to define them. I think part of the reluctance comes
> from the ambiguity doing so would give the the variant records,
> if the description fields are not constructed with extreme care to define
> exactly what the variant subtag might mean in each of the contexts in
> which it might appear.
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages