BCP47 Appeals process

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Fri Sep 19 17:54:53 CEST 2008

Hi, Sorry, I should have said, "why not akademiq" (8 characters, so possible) and not mentioned "akademy" which is a ridiculous transcription of th English word.

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com

> Hi!

> I'm hoping we can resolve the pending subtag requests soon!

> ([acad1959] is fine to me if you need to specify a particular standard; I think the reason that the French was codified by year however was because it was French spoken in the past--we wanted to distinguish the date at which it was used; if the subtag is to include a current and changing variety then I suppose [acad1959] would not be so great but if it is a standard that needs to be specified, then o.k. you will not get an argument from me.

> I  think that if we decide that the year is inappropriate and if we decide we need to distinguish this academy from others around the world by spelling it with a k then akademy would be preferable to akadem -- why the truncation anyway?  Variant subtats are allowed eight characters.

Sorry should have said "akademiq" or does that look still more ridiculous to the Belarussian speakers?
> [academic] is fine with me too!

> Thanks!

> --C. E. Whitehead
> cewcathar at hotmail.com

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list