Reminder: Ulster Scots
yury.tarasievich at gmail.com
Wed Mar 31 20:52:39 CEST 2010
On 03/31/2010 07:21 PM, Doug Ewell wrote:
> If this is an accepted orthography and there is no particular reason to
> suspect it will be replaced or substantially amended any time soon,
> compared to other orthographies, then attaching a date is what seems to
> me like looking in a crystal ball. It is like saying we expect another
> revision in the future. We don't write "be-tarask05" or "kw-ucrcor95"
> in anticipation of future revisions to those orthographies.
A codification date, I believe, isn't attached
"in anticipation" of something, but in order to
free the (sub)tag from the time-context. Or,
indeed, one might "anticipate" using the
registry in, say, 100 years from now, when many
subtags of the "standard" nature would loose
their meaning. And, by the way, yes, one
actually can produce texts complying with yet to
be published codification.
More information about the Ietf-languages