Oriya and Odia

Phillips, Addison addison at lab126.com
Fri May 13 22:29:44 CEST 2016

I also agree.

From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Markus Scherer
Sent: Friday, May 13, 2016 12:59 PM
To: Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>
Cc: ietf-languages <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Subject: Re: Oriya and Odia

On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 12:07 PM, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org<mailto: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/d94657a0/attachment.html>

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list