LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4): pinyin

[Phillips, Addison]

Michael:

You can approve or reject a given request. However, if you modify someone else’s request, you should probably grant that person or persons the opportunity to respond. Those people’s names appear on the record, as yours does not.

If they don’t approve, you can reject their request as inadequate, citing reasons and saying what you would approve. The RFC provides for and allows them to modify their request following a rejection to gain your approval.

Personally, I am somewhat horrified by the idea that a requester might vehemently object to an “edited” version of their request and that the result might be registered with their name on it. Of course, anyone else, including you, Michael, may submit and get registered a subtag that the original requester disagrees with. You don’t have to register “just anything” and you don’t have to approve Mark and Ihar’s request. But your alternative is not to ignore their protests and press ahead. It is to reject their application.

Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 10:15 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4): pinyin

Let me put it another way.

This has gone round and round and round and I find that the string "1959acad" correctly and adequately describes the non-Taraskievičian orthography (including whatever minor differenced there may be between the 1933/1959/1985 versions). I find that "acade" and "academ" and "akademik" are contentious and unsuitable. I don't intend to approve a generic institutional tag, based on the very sensible precedent we have with the Académie Française.

I have been unconvinced by the arguments against "1959acad" and convinced by the arguments for it. So I would like to approve "1959acad" without further discussion. I don't believe that it will cause problems in the future. Either the eventual 2010 orthography will be able to be subsumed under this (as 1985 and 1933 are) or it will require a subtag of its own.

M.

On 23 Sep 2008, at 17:36, Phillips, Addison wrote:


“approve”?

The only people, as far as I can discern, who need to indicate approval here are the original requesters. If they don’t agree with your changes and you approve this request, they would be within their rights to appeal (especially since their names are on it). Others may signal support or lack of support for a given request, including this one, which may be used as evidence of consensus by the reviewer in deciding to approve or reject it.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no<mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no> [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 6:37 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4): pinyin

I agree completely with Yury here. I am convinced that 1959acad is the most suitable and appropriate subtag. I urge you all to approve the compromise registration I put forward today.

On 23 Sep 2008, at 12:14, Yury Tarasievich wrote:



Dear Mark and all protesters on the lines of:



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

You are showing somewhat insufficient acquantaince with the subject at hand.

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, was introduced into the official use
on January 1, 1958 and into the schooling on September 1, 1958. However,
the first rulebook was published in 1959, and so the norm is popularly
and overwhelmingly associated with the year 1959. The academic editions
of the grammar came out later, and both those and the vocabularies are
re-published periodically in the new editions. The works on phonology
also relate to the literary norm discussed here, which is signified both
by the titles and by the introductions.

Now, it is precisely the "1959 norm" (or "1959 grammar" or "1959
orthography"), as defined in quoted references, which is the actually
obliging, academic literary norm in the official use in Belarus in 2008
CE etc. etc. 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.

-Yury
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no<mailto:Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no>
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com<http://www.evertype.com/>


Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com<http://www.evertype.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080923/bc91e73c/attachment-0001.htm