RE: Language for taxonomic names, redux
"Doug Ewell" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.languages |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <20170221125042.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.2f45c0b0a7.wbe@email03.godaddy.com> |
Andy Mabbett wrote: > Some 14 years(!) ago, I raised the issue of a language code for > marking up the taxonomic names of living things: > > http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2003-February/000574.html > > But that came to nothing. Actually, it was considered rather extensively on the list, and Michael made a formal decision in http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2003-February/000582.html : "Scientific Latin is not a dialect of Latin. It has no verbs. No pronouns. No phonemes or grammatical elements which differ from ordinary Latin. "Scientific Latin is a long list of terms not generally found in Latin-English dictionaries. It's a glossary. "I am going to reject this one." I would think that the need today would be to demonstrate that this meets the criteria in Section 3.6 of RFC 5646, which didn't exist 14 years ago: "Dialect or other divisions or variations within a language, its orthography, writing system, regional or historical usage, transliteration or other transformation, or distinguishing variation MAY be registered as variant subtags." -- Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org _______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list [email protected] http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages