Proposed new variant subtag: pre1917
ajlyon at ucla.edu
Tue Sep 14 16:59:22 CEST 2010
2010/9/14 Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>:
> Avram, what are your preferences for the subtag values under discussion,
> and are your needs met by having two variant subtags, one for the period
> 1708 to 1917 (or 1918) and another for 1917 (or 1918) to the present?
My needs are met by having two variant subtags as you describe. I
think I would prefer the value "petrine" over "grazhdan", despite
having submitted a request for the latter, since "grazhdanskii shrift"
is the reform in letter shapes that was contemporary with, but not the
same as, the Petrine orthographic reforms. I wouldn't want some one to
think that the subtag was referring to the letter shapes employed in
the text bearing the present subtag, since the pre-Petrine othography
could be used in conjunction with the new letter shapes (as in many
academic texts to this day), and the Petrine orthography (or, indeed,
the modern Shakhmatov) could be used in conjunction with the old
letter shapes (as in some church books and archaizing texts).
For the post-1917 (1918) orthography, I'm still happy with "shakhmat",
although I'd be glad to hear other suggestions.
2010/9/13 Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>:
> Would any of the following (or something else) be acceptable as a
> Description field, moving the existing Description field to Comments?
> Petrine orthography
> Petrine orthography of 1708
> Russian orthography of 1708
The first of these ("Petrine orthography") would work well for me.
These two subtags would cover my present needs for orthographic
variants; I will be submitting some new requests for romanizations of
Cyrillic in the near future.
As always, thank you for your careful consideration of my requests and
your help in formulating them appropriately.
More information about the Ietf-languages