Tracey, Niall niall.tracey at
Tue Sep 23 18:28:12 CEST 2008

From: Yury Tarasievich
Sent: 23 September 2008 12:15

> The sources cited by me all refer to the *same* specific
> literary norm, which was actually decreed on May 11, 1957
> (!) as "changes and corrections" to the previous norm,

This undermines Michael's assertion that it is suitable for describing text conforming to the 1933 standard.

> Only when (if) the changes decreed in 2008 become officially
> part of the literary norm, then there will be possibly the
> need of the 2010acad tag, and of referring to the "2010 norm" etc.

> I wonder how this is so confusing. All these troubles with the
> supposedly "unacceptional" nature of the 1959 part of the tag
> seem to be somewhat imaginary. As seen by me, of course.

This isn't confusion, it's a disagreement.

You think it's OK to need a new variant tag in two years' time -- we think that's a bad idea. We want to have (at most) a different *sub*tag in two years' time.

But as I said before, this isn't an issue if we can assume that "be" can be taken to mean the standard orthography. Is that a safe assumption?


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.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list