New variant subtags for Serbian language
cowan at mercury.ccil.org
Sat Nov 16 18:43:41 CET 2013
Goran Rakic scripsit:
> I think that prefix is required as two new variants are mutually
The Prefix field just specifies one legal prefix, not the only legal
prefix. Thus, the Prefix field on 'biscayan' is 'eu', which means that
'eu-biscayan' is an appropriate tag; however, 'eu-ES-biscayan' is also
an appropriate tag. The field cannot enforce mutual exclusivity (nor
can anything else).
> Without a common prefix one could form the sr-ekavn-ijekavn language
> tag that makes no sense.
Hopefully, then, no language tagger will use it, for the same reason
they would not use ru-Latn-petr1708.
> if they are suitable.
If they are found to be suitable, they can be added. Furthermore,
adherence to variant prefixes is only recommended, not required.
> The Serbian official standard recognizes two pronunciations. As far as
> I know that is not the case for current Croatian and Bosnian standards
> where both are based on Ijekavian.
Standard Montenegrin, too.
> I would suggest to approve two new variant subtags for the Serbian
> language now, and if there are well formed requests ever for new
> variants in other languages it would be easy to modify subtags and add
> new prefixes.
For list members not aware of the relationship of the four standards, see
Unless it was by accident that I had John Cowan
offended someone, I never apologized. cowan at ccil.org
--Quentin Crisp http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
More information about the Ietf-languages