Ciarán Ó Duibhín
ciaran at oduibhin.freeserve.co.uk
Wed Apr 25 01:49:54 CEST 2007
Yury Tarasievich wrote:
> That's why I suggest to leave the word "classic" there only in the
> translated title of the ref. book, which I suggest to add -- to keep
> everybody happy.
> If the occurences of the word "classic" would be limited to the
> translation of the title of the book, that'd quite sufficient and fair
> to everybody involved, I believe.
But then it won't appear in the registry, will it? As far as I know, the
field "5. Reference to published description of the language (book or
article)" of the application form is for *our* information only, in this
group, and does not go into the registry. So, while the offer to allow the
name "classic" in this non-public field is generous, it does not compensate
for its demanded removal from the comments field, which *does* go in the
Someone will correct me if I've got this wrong, but I understand that a
registry entry for a variant contains only the following fields from the
application form: Type, Subtag, Description, Prefix, Comments. These fields
are collectively labelled "Record requested". Certainly they are the only
fields, apart from date added, to be found for variant subtags in the
registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry
In the proposal for the tarask variant, the only one of these registry
fields which contains the name "classical" is the comments field, where it
appears once. And that is where Mr Tarasievich wants to remove it. If it
is removed, there will be no mention of "classical" in the registry entry.
What then happens if someone has a text to tag, and knows only that it is in
"(so-called) classical Belarus orthography". How will we be able to tell
from the registry that the "tarask" subtag should be used?
Ciarán Ó Duibhín.
More information about the Ietf-languages