Language and script encoding standards

[Mark Davis]

I didn't understand your message. What I was saying was that romanization is
more important, typically, than country. That is, for fallbacks, the best
formulation would have been to put the transliteration system before the
country, because it typically makes a much larger difference in the outcome.

Thus

ru-Latn-GOST-RU
ru-Latn-GOST-UA
both falling back to
ru-Latn-GOST

rather than
ru-Latn-RU-GOST
ru-Latn-RU-ISO
both falling back to
ru-Latn-RU

Mark

On 7/23/06, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Mark Davis scripsit:
>
> > One of the things we've run into is that romanization (and in general,
> > transliteration schemes and other big orthographic variations, like
> > polytonic) tend to cut across countries instead of be within them. In
> > retrospect, it's too bad that we didn't allow for both script plus
> > orthographic variants in second position, since it would have worked
> > better with fallback. Ah well, hindsight is 20:20....
>
> I don't actually think so.  Most romanization schemes have variants,
> and most people who can use one can use them all, with the exception
> of a few special cases like Pinyin as taught to native Chinese speakers.
>
> --
> I could dance with you till the cows            John Cowan
> come home.  On second thought, I'd              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> rather dance with the cows when you             cowan at ccil.org
> came home.  --Rufus T. Firefly
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20060724/ce84dc45/attachment.html