[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

[Mark Davis]

Well, my vote is for encoding the two script variants Hans/Hant, on the
pattern of Latn/Latg/Latf. Just as with Latn, the script value Hann does not
discriminate between Hans and Hant. If further script variants of Hann are
needed in the future, they could be considered at that time.

Mark
(مرقص بن داود)
________
mark.davis at jtcsv.com
IBM, MS 50-2/B11, 5600 Cottle Rd, SJ CA 95193
(408) 256-3148
fax: (408) 256-0799

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 15:46
Subject: Re: [Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]


> At 16:53 -0400 2003-04-09, John Cowan wrote:
> >Michael Everson scripsit:
> >
> >>  Only because I'm not convinced that everyone is satisfied with
Hant/Hans.
> >
> >What will it take to convince you?  (This is not a rhetorical question.)
>
> A considered weigh-in from Ken Whistler, Peter Constable, James Seng,
> Mark Davis, and John Jenkins that all the bases are covered.
>
> Remember, the *script* is Hani. We would be encoding TWO script
> variants in 15924. Now that in itself is unusual. Compare
> Latn/Latg/Latf. The thing is that Latn is still used by itself, but
> if we have Hant/Hans then what function will Hani have? What about
> Jiaguwen (Bone and Shell)?
>
> I don't dispute that there are different orthographies for written
> Chinese. I want to make sure that THIS is the best way of reflecting
> this.
> --
> Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>