Reminder: Ulster Scots
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
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
2006.
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
value.
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list