On 4/6/14 14:10, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
No, I didn't say it wasn't acceptable. I just mentioned that once la-classic is registered, el-classic may not be registered later for example.
I'm not sure this is correct. You wouldn't register "la-classic" as such; you'd register "classic" as a variant subtag. And as far as I understand (see http://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp47#section-3.5), you could register the variant "classic" for use with multiple prefixes, so that both "la-classic" and "el-classic" would be legitimate.
The important point would be to make it clear in the initial registration that the "classic" variant subtag is intended to mark "classical" orthography for any language that has a classical vs modern distinction, and NOT to describe it as a tag specifically for "classical Latin".
The "prefix" field in the registry could either be omitted altogether, leaving the variant free to be used with any language (like "fonipa"), or multiple prefixes could be listed: at least "la" and "el", but there are no doubt other reasonable candidates as well (classical Sanskrit, Tamil, ...). Compare, for example, the registry entry for "baku1926".
Note that it is legal to add further prefixes in subsequent requests, so it is not necessary to be exhaustive in the initial registration. But if including a prefix at all, it is, I think, important to make it clear in the description, and by including several example prefixes, that the usage of this variant subtag is NOT intended to be limited to a specific language.
JK
