Reminder: Ulster Scots
everson at evertype.com
Thu Apr 1 20:26:10 CEST 2010
Mark's and Doug's arguments seemed best to me. Both sides had merit. "ulster" it is.
Robinson is out since it is Fenton 2006 and Robinson 2007 anyway both using the same orthography.
Accordingly as the two weeks is up and no change is made to the proposal, I declare it approved as per Doug's minor revision of 17 March.
On 31 Mar 2010, at 19:29, Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> I agree. In accordance with the general principles of BCP47, we should have an "ulster" code. That lets people tag data appropriately, just as you can tag data as "de" (German) even though there are multiple possible orthographies or dialects.
> If, in addition, there are multiple orthographies that need to be distinguished, those should be subtags, eg ulster-rob2006.
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:14, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> > Hands up, everyone, ulster or 2006ulst and why.
> I vote for 'ulster'. It is functionally equivalent to '2006ulst' and
> much, much less cryptic. We can always register 'ulster15' if an
> incompatibly different standard does emerge five years from now.
> We also need to decide whether the intended scope is
> dialect-plus-orthography or just orthography.
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages