Reminder: Ulster Scots
doug at ewellic.org
Mon Mar 29 15:15:19 CEST 2010
Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:
>> Or will we merely see a gradual evolution/expansion of the existing
>> list? If the orthography is organic or merely documents actual usage
>> or represent a specific direction in orthographic reform, perhaps
>> tying the subtag to a date is unnecessarily strict.
> That date refers to a particular document specifying the orthography.
> We did the same thing with French and Belarusian.
For French we were intentionally capturing two historical snapshots
("Late Middle French" and "Early Modern French") and used the
publication dates 1606 and 1694 as historical references. For
Belarusian we were trying hard to avoid the generic terms "academic" and
"academy," and used the date of the standard for this purpose after much
I agree that for the most part, dates in subtags are unnecessarily
inscrutable, and we should try to avoid them except when they are
genuinely relevant to the identity of the variant being identified.
Many language variations are codified in documents, which happen to have
been written or published in a certain year, which might not mean
anything to users.
I would be fine with "robinson" or some variation, as opposed to
"ulster," if that would provide a better hint that Robinson's
orthography, and not the dialect, is what is being represented.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages