Re: subtag kmpre20c

Thanks for clarifying. I think it would help to make this clearer in the wo=
rding in section 4.


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages <[email protected]> On Behalf Of =C9lie =
Roux
Sent: Saturday, November 9, 2019 3:36 PM
To: IETF Languages Discussion <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] subtag kmpre20c

> Typo: "speicific".

Thanks!

> This isn't clear to me. Is this meant to apply to texts that pre-dated _a=
ny_ of the XXth c. reforms?

Yes

> What if the text reflects some earlier XXth c. reform but not later refor=
ms?

Then this tag should not be applied. Note that the early XXth c.
reform is the current official spelling (later spelling reforms have been u=
sed and then abandonned)

> Is there a need to distinguish texts that may reflect transitional XXth c=
.. stages from current orthographic convention or a current standard referen=
ce?

Not in the dataset I need to tag. The need may certainly arise in other con=
texts and I'd support any initiative for tags differentiating the two main =
types of spellings of the XXth c. reforms.

> Also, literature from earlier periods of a language's history may reflect=
 greater variety / less conventionality in spelling practice. If that is tr=
ue for earlier Khmer literature, is this meant to encompass any earlier tex=
ts?

Yes

Best,
--
Elie

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=3Dhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.iet=
f.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&amp;data=3D02%7C01%7Cpetercon%4=
0microsoft.com%7C37c2da574882466d6dfc08d7656f03d8%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7=
cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C637089399815076242&amp;sdata=3DWrMZ%2FZOBn%2B93iR3WHFPO=
wfY0y5ufCs7IRrxwQHwubFI%3D&amp;reserved=3D0