Proposed new variant subtag: pre1917
kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Sun Sep 12 15:56:08 CEST 2010
I think using a year number for a variant subtag for an orthography
*introduced* officially or effectively at or around a particular year
perfectly fine. (But I agree that "pre1917" is a no-go. It's backwards.)
Something like "cyr44let" is, however, needlessly obfuscated.
I don't see a proposal for a subtag for post-1917 Russian orthography...
Den 2010-09-12 09.10, skrev "Yury Tarasievich" <yury.tarasievich at gmail.com>:
> On 09/11/2010 10:38 PM, CE Whitehead wrote:
>>> So you have Peter 1708, something 1750, and something with more disused
>>> letters, in addition to modern post-1917 orthography. So you need three
>> I also agree with Doug's post that a year is not a particularly good
>> identifier for a variant.
>> One question: are there are sufficient differences in all three
>> orthographies to warrant three subtags
>> (of course even a trivial difference can be catalogued with a variant subtag,
>> if that is what you need). If so, then one subtag, maybe [pre1917] would do.
> So make the subtags referring to the number of
> letters in those alphabet variants. E.g.,
> [cyr44let] or something like that.
> Seems like a safe choice for the pre-1917 Cyrillic.
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages