Michael Everson everson at
Tue Sep 23 21:24:37 CEST 2008

On 23 Sep 2008, at 19:47, Phillips, Addison wrote:

> AP> I don’t believe that Mark and Ihar’s request refers to the  
> institution at all.

The forms of the proposed subtags do.

> If Mark and Ihar are OK with the revision I have proposed, we can go  
> ahead with it with their names on it. If they don't want that,  
> perhaps Yury or I or both of us will sponsor it.
> AP> That’s fine, provided you reject Mark/Ihar’s request, submit the  
> new request, grant the two week review period required. And note  
> that Mark and/or Ihar may appeal your action.

Ihar has indicated that he can live with "1959acad".

> I am rejecting "acade" and "academ" and "akademia" because they are  
> too generic.
> AP> Huh? The request itself is not for a generic subtag. I think you  
> mean that the subtag’s form suggests that it is a generic subtag  
> when it is not.

Yes, I mean the form.

> AP> If you’re going to go down the year path at all costs, I would  
> tend to prefer that you get rid of the ugly and unhelpful ‘acad’  
> part altogether. The subtag ‘1959’ is consistent with other similar  
> subtags (1901, 1996, 1994). If you don’t know what the subtag means,  
> you probably shouldn’t be using it and I think that ‘acad’ doesn’t  
> add anything outside the context of this email thread.

Noted, but I find "acad" t be neither ugly nor unhelpful.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list