Occitan oddity

Philip Newton philip.newton at gmail.com
Fri Aug 6 10:03:12 CEST 2010

On Fri, Aug 6, 2010 at 04:13, Mark Davis ☕ <mark at macchiato.com> wrote:
> There is no need to mark it as "(post 1500)", since there is no competing
> "Occitan". The (post 1500) really belongs in a comment, or as an alternate
> Description. After all, we don't mark "en" as "English (post 1500) even
> though we have:
> Type: language
> Subtag: enm
> Description: Middle English (1100-1500)
> Added: 2005-10-16

True, but we do mark "el" as "Modern Greek (1453-)".

I think this is merely an artefact of using the descriptions in ISO
639-2, which include dates in certain cases (such as Modern Greek and
(modern) Occitan) but not in others (such as (modern) English and
(modern) Irish).

Personally, I'd keep those items from ISO 639-2 identical with what
that list has. (But shouldn't oc then be "Occitan, Provençal (1500-)"
or possibly "Occitan (1500-)" + "Provençal (1500-)"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-2_codes#O implies that
both names are in ISO 639-2.)

Philip Newton <philip.newton at gmail.com>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list