Yury Tarasievich yury.tarasievich at
Tue Sep 23 19:18:30 CEST 2008

Tracey, Niall wrote:
> 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.

Please, please, all people mentioning it -- forget about "1933"!
This is *effectively unrelated* to the issue at hand and has drifted 
here from *my* request for clearing things up at *CLDR* -- after the 
maintainers there effectively declined restricting the Belarusian 
dataset to the "standard" literary norm, I requested separating the 
content into the *two generic* branches. The background info which was 
repeated verbatimly by Mark in his request, and that's how the "1933" 
got into that (it was the first norm approved by the academy, BTW). I 
think, too, this is why Mark is pushing so for the *generic* subtag. It 
remains to be explained why Mark keeps requesting obviously silly names 
for the subtag (acade, akadem etc.), is somebody facetious whispering in 
his ear?

And yes, for the serious use (like in the registry tagging texts in the 
scholarly fashion) I'd advise assuming /be/ equals /be-academic/, but it 
became clear early on that this will not happen.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list