Mark Davis mark at
Tue Sep 23 11:51:53 CEST 2008

> Mark seems to want a tag that means "not Taraskievič" -- but that is

That isn't a correct interpretation of what I'm asking for.

We should not be using year numbers in variant tags *unless* we mean
precisely what is defined by a standard associated with that year. Otherwise
the tag is too narrow, and does not describe the intended scope. The tag I
am registering does NOT exclude changes made in a 2008 revision by the
Belarusian academy, for example.

And that is the basic convention that we have been following up until now.

Languages are inherently broad: even variants typically encompassing a fair
variety. We can't get around that. "en" does not mean English of King James,
or English of the OED, or as defined by any particular work. Swiss German
doesn't mean Zuerituetsch, or Baerntuesch, nor is it associated with a
particular year. We don't have  sl-roza1483-solb1843, we have
sl-rozaj-solba. IF we want to refer to a particular standardize version,
published in a particular year, THEN we have the variant subtag for that:

The sources cited by Yury are NOT restricted to 1959, and 1959 should not be
part of the subtag.

Take a variant that you yourself pushed for: en-GB-oed. Why didn't you ask
for oed1928, or oed1933, or oed1986, or oed2007 in

When you requested registration for fonipa, why was it not fipa1886, or
fipa1989, or fipa2005?

Why? Because you didn't want or need a limitation to a particular version in
a particular year.

For the same reasons, a year should not be part of this subtag. Doing
anything else deviates radically from past practice, and sets a horrible
precedent for the future.


On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 11:08 AM, Michael Everson <everson at>wrote:

> On 11 Sep 2008, at 12:09, Mark Davis wrote:
> > zh-Latn-pinyin. This is to represent Mandarin Chinese written in the
> > Hanyu Pinyin form, as opposed to Wade-Giles.While "Latn" is implied
> > by the variant tag, for better implementation behavior it is
> > included, so the prefix should be "zh-Latn". This is just like how
> > biske has "rozaj" in its prefix (sl-rozaj).
> >
> > This does not follow the pattern of fonipa, since it is a specific
> > romanization of a specific language. If we are to be consistent with
> > the pattern of denying "eastern", we should not broaden this tag to
> > be more than what is intended. The name "pinyin" would be the best
> > name, since that is the most recognizable term. I do not want the
> > year 1954 in the subtag, nor the year 1979, nor any other year,
> > since those would be too restrictive.
> It may not be like "fonipa" (which is and is intended to be truly
> universal) but it is like "fonupa" which is for a restricted set of
> languages.
> > be-acade. This should not have the year in the variant subtag
> > either, since that would be too restrictive, and not represent the
> > form that is intended for registration. After all, as in the
> > registration form (text originally from Yuri), "The
> > "academic" (normative, literary) form, existing in a relatively
> > unchanged form for 75 years". This tag is for the more general
> > category; those specific forms could be added later, using the "sl-
> > rozaj-biske" model if someone wants forms that are specific to a
> > form defined by a work in a given year: 1959, 1985, 2008, or
> > whatever. But that is not the intention for this subtag -- it is not
> > year-specific.
> The year in 1959acad specifies its source just as the year in
> 1694acad. Like the Académie Française, the Instytut movaznaŭstva
> (Nacyjanal'naj) Akadèmii navuk Belarusi is just an institution. To
> specify an orthography approved by either of those institutions
> reference to some specific normative reference is required.
> Mark seems to want a tag that means "not Taraskievič" -- but that is
> too vague. I don't believe we can register subtags with negative
> meanings.
> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list