Reminder: Ulster Scots

[CE Whitehead]

Hi.


Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org 
Mon Mar 29 15:15:19 CEST 2010 

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:


> I agree that for the most part, dates in subtags are unnecessarily 
> inscrutable, and we should try to avoid them except when they are 
> genuinely relevant to the identity of the variant being identified. 
> Many language variations are codified in documents, which happen to have 
> been written or published in a certain year, which might not mean 
> anything to users.

> I would be fine with "robinson" or some variation, as opposed to 
> "ulster," if that would provide a better hint that Robinson's 
> orthography, and not the dialect, is what is being represented.
I would be fine with [robinson] if we could just make it [ulster-robinson], or some such nonsense,
but we cannot.
So I like Michael Everson's suggestion.  (Sorry Doug; I usually agree with you.)

Or else just [ulster] with Robinson left to the description field?
Best,

C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20100329/726c9865/attachment.htm