policy wrt politics (was RE: be-tarask language subtag
C Eddie Whitehead
cewcathar at yahoo.com
Sun Apr 1 20:39:56 CEST 2007
Hi, my comments are below; hope this will not be another registration that we prolong beyond the two-week review period unless for some reason it is necessary.
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:
>Can we safely judge when all the opponents have reached consensus?
>Doesn't that create a risk that we're making political evaluations?
>some opponent comes along after the fact and says, "You didn't wait to
>hear my opinion," won't we appear to have taken sides in the political
Are you saying we should wait the two weeks then?
I think we have held up proposals before too, and longer than two weeks; but ideally we should discuss this for at most the two-week review period unless there is new information or some other valid reason to extend that then either the subtag or not.
So I would not vote for waiting to hear from others for more than two weeks.
"Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com> wrote also :
>In 2005, there were:
>* one official (BSSR, then Belarus) grammar 1918+1925+1933+1959, also
>used by etc.
>* orthography of group of 4 linguists:
i>ssue 3: more "akannye" than in 1920s grammars
>also: additional letter introduced in alphabet.
>* various unofficial grammars, which continue to be used, disregarding
>the book of 4 linguists, all these and book of 4 linguists, too,
>sharing the loose umbrella denotation of
So it's not got an official grammar but it's in use which I think is the criteria,
so as soon as we have adequately discussed this, then I think we should register the tarask subtag for the variant of the script
& should wait no more than 2 weeks.
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages