Subject: [Ltru] Re: New scripts

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:46:22 -0800

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> The only example I recall was, for lack of a better word,
>> "bureaucratese," meaning the peculiar varieties of language
>> preferred by the governmental and quasi-governmental
>> officials associated with the EU.  I have heard it facetiously
>> called "mandarin English".
>
> IIRC I used "eurocrat" as *example* here or on the review
> list months ago, nobody ever tried to register a variant
> for this.

In June 2003 there was a serious proposal to register a variant tag for 
Newspeak, as described in Orwell's "1984."  The proposal was quite 
sensibly rejected.

I can hardly believe that four years later, and supposedly four years 
wiser, we have arrived at the point where, having identified a brand of 
jargon much less radical than Newspeak, and not nearly as well defined, 
we wish not merely to register a variant subtag for it, but to change 
the registration rules to permit the addition of a *region* subtag for 
it.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://home.roadrunner.com/~dewell
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Frank Ellermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2007 16:51:56 +0100

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> I can hardly believe that four years later, and supposedly four 
> years wiser, we have arrived at the point where, having identified
> a brand of jargon much less radical than Newspeak, and not nearly
> as well defined, we wish not merely to register a variant subtag
> for it, but to change the registration rules to permit the
> addition of a *region* subtag for it.

Oops, so far I thought this EU business was about getting rid of
QU in CLDR, completely unrelated to any practical language tagging
needs.  Something in the CLDR rules must be odd if they can't just
use EU for their purposes without prior "permission" in a language
subtag registry.  

I can guess good reasons why ISO 3166 won't add it, it could cause
problems if one location has more than one corresponding region
code.  And unlike UK + GB, where one could be deprecated in favour
of the other as workaround permitting both, this trick can't work
for say BE + EU.

Of course "we" have more than one code for various locations with
the additional UN codes, but "our" needs are also different from 
ISO 3166.  And different from CLDR, I think.  

 Frank