Occitan oddity

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Fri Aug 6 22:14:04 CEST 2010

Mark Davis ☕ <mark <at> macchiato.com>
2010-08-06 02:13:42 GMT

> I didn't get an exact match against Occitan. When I looked at the registry, it has the somewhat odd formulation:

> Type: language Subtag: oc Description: Occitan (post 1500) 
> Added: 2005-10-16 
> Type: language Subtag: pro Description: Old Provençal (to 1500)
> Description: Old Occitan (to 1500) Added: 2005-10-16 
> Type: language Subtag: frp Description: Arpitan Description:
> Francoprovençal Added: 2009-07-29 

> 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
> I thought I'd float this out, before filling out a form.
I think things are o.k. as are for this one actually.
> Mark
> — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
I tend to agree with Michael Everson; I see no real reason to remove the comment here (unless someone convinces me that the comment is giving a database or an application trouble) -- for me, the dates do help to clarify things (especially since neither names tries to hint at the dates).
(A side note -- though perhaps it should be another thread: I am having trouble with the alvestrand.no site and had to go to a different site to find this discussion.  Should I email the alvestrand.no administrator?)

--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 		 	   		  

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list