Status of recent proposals
kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Fri Oct 1 19:03:27 CEST 2010
Den 2010-10-01 16.56, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>:
> 1. Pre- and post-1917 Russian orthography/alphabet
> Michael said "please wait" on September 15, then suggested 'petr1708'
> and 'luna1918' on September 17. No significant objection to these
> subtag values has emerged since then, but I wasn't sure there was enough
> consensus for final forms yet, so none have been sent to the list.
I have no objection to 'petr1708' and 'luna1918'.
> 2. ISO 9:1995
> Avram proposed a subtag on September 14. There was concern over the
> subtag value; the original 'iso91995' could be confusing even if
> research shows the intended ISO number to be unambiguous. Michael
> suggested 'iscyrl95' meaning roughly "the ISO standard from 1995 for
> transliterating Cyrillic." Yury suggested 'iso1995' which assumes that
> only one ISO standard on transliteration was published in 1995, and that
> the prefix will make it clear that Cyrillic is involved. I don't recall
> seeing consensus on these or any other suggestions.
> Registering separate subtags for "System A" (transliteration with
> diacritics, ISO 9 and GOST 7.79) and "System B" (transcription to letter
> combinations, only in GOST) was also discussed. This thread also seems
> to have died down without consensus. Consequently, there are no final
> forms yet.
This is woefully inadequate, in particular the proposed variant subtag
> 4. Wolof Suppress-Script
> This was proposed by Peter (with form) on September 19. Peter noted
> that a convention exists for writing Wolof in the Arabic script, making
> the Latin Suppress-Script field inappropriate. There was no objection
> from the list on removing this field.
That "a convention exists for writing Wolof in the Arabic script" is very
far from denying that "the overwhelming majority of documents in Wolof
are written in the Latin script". The former may well be true without in
any way diminishing the truth of the latter. For this suppress-script to
be removed, I'd like to see a convincing argument that the latter
statement isn't true.
More information about the Ietf-languages