Oriya and Odia

Markus Scherer markus.icu at gmail.com
Fri May 13 21:58:53 CEST 2016

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:

> we can — and I argue that we should —
> add a second Description field:
>         Type: language
>         Subtag: or
>         Description: Oriya (macrolanguage)
>         Description: Odia (macrolanguage)
>         Added: 2005-10-16
>         Suppress-Script: Orya
>         Scope: macrolanguage
> Then, for consistency, we can apply a modification of the ISO name to
> the first Description field for 'ory', without (IMHO) violating the
> intent of 3.1.5:
>         Type: language
>         Subtag: ory
>         Description: Odia (individual language)
>         Description: Oriya (individual language)
>         Added: 2012-08-12
>         Macrolanguage: or
> The names are out of order with respect to each other ("Oriya" first for
> 'or', "Odia" first for 'ory') because of the requirements of 3.1.5, but
> the bottom line is that the Registry would show both names for both
> subtags. This would allow implementers of BCP 47 to use either name
> without deviating from the Registry unnecessarily, and should satisfy
> those who prefer either the "old-school" name or the "new-school" name.

I agree with your suggestions.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20160513/fdcd2f41/attachment.html>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list