Re: [Ietf-languages] Latgalian variant request (was: RE: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM)

[Lenny Soshinskiy <[e-mail]>]

Thank you for your elaboration and advice.
How (where) do I send an updated version of the registration form?

PS. I think it would be logical, if I also submit another variant that was
prevalent before the 2007 law.
One may look here: http://termi.lv/lg/ for a comparison of 2007 law and
1929 law orthographies in tables.

On Mon, 6 Jun 2022 at 20:34, Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hi Lenny,
>
> Thank you for your request.
>
> The Description and Comments fields for this request need to be much more
> brief, as I argued in September 2020 with regard to your request for the
> Latvian orthography subtag that became 'vecdruka':
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/J_7VPjOiDyCKvw8L_Nq2NAMI3UE/
>
> > The Description field should be suitable for use in a list of variant
> > subtags presented in a UI. The Comments field, if present, should
> > provide additional information that is necessary to distinguish the
> > variant from others. Neither is intended to be encyclopedic; that's
> > what item 6 on the registration form, "Any other relevant information"
> > (omitted from this form) is for. The registration forms are archived
> > at IANA (see URL below) for those who need this information.
>
> Please also see this:
>
>
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/GjAtsVgRhbMbEbxULou1KaZxsoM/
> "A long post about long Description and Comments fields"
>
> In particular, material such as "it might be useful to introduce the
> subtag" is not appropriate for the record which will actually appear in the
> Registry (assuming this request is approved).
>
> Although almost every variant record includes a Comments field, this is
> not needed if the meaning of the subtag is clear from the Description, and
> especially not if it merely duplicates the Description but with more words.
>
> It might also be good to avoid terms such as "contemporary" and "nowadays"
> that might age poorly if a change in government or public opinion results
> in amendment or reversal of the 2007 law.
>
> I would suggest something like the following:
>
> Description: Official Latgalian orthography codified in 2007
> Comments: [delete]
>
> If this is not sufficient to enable users of the Registry to identify the
> orthography, we can adjust as needed.
>
> You may also consider providing a link (in the registration form, but not
> in section 3) to some material about a contrasting orthography for
> Latgalian, or a discussion of alternative orthographies, to help justify
> the claim that Latgalian content exists in several orthographies and a
> subtag is needed to identify this one.
>
> Thank you,
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
>
> From: Ietf-languages <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Lenny
> Soshinskiy
> Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 5:49
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: [Ietf-languages] LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
>
> 1. Name of requester: Leonid Soshinskiy
> 2. E-mail address of requester: mailto:[e-mail]
> 3. Record Requested:
>
>    Type:        variant
>    Subtag:      ltg2007
>    Description: The contemporary orthography of Latgalian language
> according to the law of 2007.
>    Prefix:      ltg
>    Comments:    Since Latgalian language has several widely-used
> orthographies across its history and even nowadays, it might be useful to
> introduce the subtag, which represents the contemporary official
> orthography of Latgalian language codified in 2007.
>
> 4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
>
> The contemporary official orthography of the Latgalian language codified
> in 2007 and that's used nowadays.
>
> 5. Reference to published description of the language (book or article):
>
> -- The law (of the Latvian State) that codifies Latgalian language
> https://likumi.lv/ta/id/164904-par-latgaliesu-rakstibas-noteikumiem
>
>
>