Reminder: Ulster Scots

Doug Ewell doug at
Wed Mar 31 15:16:40 CEST 2010

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

>> The subtag you originally requested, "ulster", would be vague and 
>> create ambiguity between the two kinds of distinctions: one user 
>> might assume it referred to a dialectal distinction while another 
>> might assume it refers to an orthographic distinction. That could 
>> lead to problems of inconsistency in practice and issues with 
>> interoperability.
> Hence 2006ulst.

I know my opinion wasn't solicited here, but I didn't see ambiguity as 
to which year's revision of the Ulster/Robinson orthography was being 
represented, such that the date 2006 helps.  I did see the ambiguity 
Peter mentioned (dialect vs. orthography), and wasn't sure that the date 
resolves this ambiguity.  I do think it distracts and adds confusion.

I think 'ulstorth' for "Ulster orthography" sounds particularly ugly and 
I'm not proposing it, but to play devil's advocate, it would resolve the 
ambiguity without making people wonder what is special about the year 

Having said all this, I won't formally oppose '2006ulst' in any way.  I 
think we can do better, but ultimately the registration of the semantic 
is what is important, not the exact characters used to form the subtag 

Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list