Martin Duerst 2008-10-02 03.00:
At 08:25 08/10/02, Leif Halvard Silli wrote:
[...]
While OTOH, using year for language reforms, is very inviting. It could encourage registration. Should that be avoided?This brings up the general issue of how we might be able to shorten discussions about registrations with clearerguidelines. If you have any ideas on this, please tell us.
For this to work, then one must have the idea of universiality in mind during the registration process.
A very basic thing would be to create a prototypical text for use with "language reform subtags". For example
Offical or recognised language reform.Then, if during the registration process, one see that the seeked variant registration meets the definition of "recognised language reform", then the registration should include that text.
The next step is to see if it also is possible to register a universal subtag - that is: A year subtag.
If the answer yes, then one either registers a new year or picks an allready registered one. If the answer is no, then one creates a new non-year subtag instead.
ISSUES:1) Non-AD years: How about years from other eras? E.g. how about a year from the Islamic era for a possible reform of an Arabic language/dialect? I think in principle this should be OK.
2) I guess one should followthe pattern of the October revolution (which occurred in November, according to our Gregorian calendar). That is: One should pick the year associated wit the reform, and not the "correct", Gregorian year.
-- leif halvard silli _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.