el-latn, ru-latn, and related possibilities
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Thu Oct 6 08:45:37 CEST 2005
--On onsdag, oktober 05, 2005 12:24:35 -0700 Tex Texin <tex at yahoo-inc.com>
wrote:
> Guys, sorry to be the odd man out yet again, but we should first run
> through all the use cases before deciding that transliteration can be
> pushed down the stack. This argument sounds to me more like a
> rationalization for continuing with 3066bis than to really address the
> question.
I certainly hope that 3066bis is cooked now.... no matter what else, it's
time to drive a stake in the ground and say "here's the starting point for
further work".... it's been long enough (langtags-00: December 2003).
> Text to voice is important for accessibility. Identification of the
> transliteration scheme would be a prominent requirement and perhaps
> therefore ru-Latn is not sufficient and should not be recommended as
> adequate.
You raise an interesting point, which is actually pertinent to LTRU's
remaining deliverable - the matching draft.
When you have a specific document in a transliterated format that you want
to read through text-to-speech, you need to know (or guess) what the
transliteration scheme is. But in searching for documents, it's less
obvious that you want to specify this information before knowing what's
available; when reading up on Chinese history sitting at an ASCII terminal,
would you reject a document transcribed into Wade-Giles if there's no
Pinyin version available?
But (this is a matter of 1766-era philosophy) one of the reasons why I
designed 1766 the way it was designed was to give people the freedom to
"put their money where their mouth is" - if they think a certain tag or tag
combination is needed, let them go through the work of deciding exactly
what they need, documenting that to this list and defending it - and then
using it, and showing the world that usage will happen. Designs based on
hypothetical needs is less likely to succeed than designs based on
experience - and the experience with 1766/3066 led to the community
deciding that generativity was good and script belonged in language tags -
3066bis.
If someone thinks they (and not some abstract "someone") need
transliteration identifiers in language tags, let them propose them. And
then we can try them.
Harald
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list