Re: Language for taxonomic names, redux

On 26/02/17 14:45, Arthur Reutenauer wrote:

>> Anyway, let /me/ try to say how it would work, then -- having the code, it
>> will work in a way specific, pertaining to the semantics of text marked so.
>> Having no code, it would not work at all.
>
>   Even with such a genering phrasing, your statement is not true.  It’s
> always possible to use a private tag to achieve whatever is desired,
...

Working in a ghetto is always possible, but 
unsurprisingly not always desired.

I have competely no stake in this, but from my 
point of view there's a request for an IETF 
code, which, though maybe stretching the 
definition of the language a little, seems like 
a valid request to have standardised means of 
tagging of the very specific and well-delimited 
linguistic content.

I have mentioned rules only to name the formal 
disctinction of the binomials-speak, so to 
speak, from mere vocabulary.

And I do not understand why are some of the 
matters (primarily, pronounciation and 
wikipedia) dragged into that discussion at all.

-Yury
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages