Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms for subtag kmpre20c

[Michael Everson <[e-mail]>]

Doug, I’ve rejected the current version of the proposal. 

On 1 Dec 2019, at 14:26, Élie Roux <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>> We have en (English, unspecified (apart from being modern English, not Old or Middle English), and we have en_US and en_GB for main variants, typically involving and we have en_GB-oxendict for a specific spelling variant.
>> 
>> It seems to me that you need a subtag for modern spelling; assuming that Chuon Nath is the name of the prevalent reform, for instance, you could have km-chuonnat or km-chn1938 or the like.
>> 
>> In fact if there were a need you could have subtags referrng to various editions of the reformed orthographies.
>> 
>> But really, we use subtags for what things ARE, not for what the are not.
> 
> Ok yes, makes sense. I will do that once I manage to gather more documents and info, which should happen in Spring.

Whenever you can. It doesn’t have to be a thesis.

> So, to continue the analogy with English: the -oxendict subtype refers to the general style right? What I mean is: in the same way that the Oxford Dictionary
> - has different editions with (I suppose marginally) different spelling
> - does not encompass all possible words of all possible strings tagged with -oxendict

In this case, en_GB has two main traditions of spelling. Oxford uses one which spells centre, colour, civilize, and the other tradition spells centre, colour, civilise. The use of this tag is chiefly to select a spell-check dictionary, I think. The one orthography closest to en_GB-oxendict is en_CA.

> I could propose a -dictcamb (for Dictionnaire Cambodgien), which could refer to:
> - the general work, not a specific edition

If the orthography differs from edition to edition and you need to make that distinction, you may need more than one subtag. 

> - a general style of spelling, defined by a dictionary that doesn’t encompass all possible words (especially loan ones, even though it refers to Pali a lot)
> 
> right?

I tend to think that subtags can be used to mark a variety of different contexts but selection of a spell-check dictionary is a very practical one.

> I think the main difference is that there will likely not be any new
> edition of the Dictionnaire Cambodgien (we could assume that if
> someone was to take over the project of a new edition, they would not
> keep the French name), and that people usually refer to the 1967
> (last) edition. In that case, what would be the customary type of
> langtag? "-dica1967" or "-dictcamb”?

dc1967 would be adequate I should think. It depends on the number of things you think you need to differentiate.

Michael