Proposed general model for Serbo-Croatian continuum

Michael Everson everson at
Fri Nov 22 11:59:43 CET 2013

On 22 Nov 2013, at 01:59, Doug Ewell <doug at> wrote:

> If you have 'sr' alone, you don't need the additional prefixes with script subtags. Prefix fields for variants aren't necessarily the complete language tag that precedes the variant.

Neither are they harmful; they are informative. 

> And you wouldn't want to have only 'sr-Latn' and 'sr-Cyrl', because these subtags (which denote varieties in pronunciation) very clearly could be used for spoken content, or content where the script is irrelevant.

Isn’t that why all three would be listed? Certainly both e/ije and е/ије are covered here. 

> The place where you want a Prefix field to include a script subtag is where you want to emphasize that the script subtag must be present.

Why not where it can be present, in the case of a language written conventionally in more than one script? 

> That is not desirable for 'ekavsk' and 'ijekavsk’.

I don’t see the harm. 

> The only thing "all" would accomplish for these new variant records is to add unneeded redundancy.

Oh, you don’t like the evident redundancy. (By the way, there’s also Glag.)

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list