Many wrote:
I am wholly and utterly opposed to allowing two records of the same type with the same subtag.And so am I.As am I.
Me too. Could not live with this. Mark added:
I'm not opposed to de-1901 uz-1901 and so on. These are meaningful and easy for people to understand.
As a matter of subtag assignment policy, which is really a question for ietf-languages, I think we are seriously overestimating both the need to tag variations identified by a year and the likelihood that users will connect these year numbers to the variations.
German was a notable special case: it had a well-known, widely publicized, and much-debated orthographic revision for which we ended up creating the tag "de-1996" (with complement "de-1901" for the old orthography) back in the RFC 3066 whole-tag days. This was largely because we wanted to avoid something like "de-revised" knowing that it might be revised again some day. However, even now we talk of "de-1901" and "de-1996" as making distinctions that usually don't need to be made; see, for example, Section 4.1 of both RFC 4646 and draft-4646E��������Ȟ��9�ӭ�����a��n��q���ή("��S�[k��܆+ޙ��'���zX�z��N����m���y�{v��W(��z+���e�ƥ��-��r������>�-~,p��H����t ��g��-�<ӭ�C�s���jT�������
��:%������jk%r��yǢ�����ƥ��-���,�]��[�+{v��W(���a#>'z����k��{v��W(�g��-�<ӭ�C�ub�����j�j֦�W(�t�jaejN]*Z�'(���ҥ��z�Z�+Z����
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.