wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs
John Cowan
cowan at ccil.org
Tue Aug 26 02:16:01 CEST 2008
Broome, Karen scripsit:
> Right. So should zh-wadegile and zh-pinyin, if registered, be deprecated
> on birth of RFC 4646bis? Or would we be better served by suggesting
> that Mark use a private extension until the "cmn" tag is added?
I'd say no to both.
First of all, there's no way to deprecate a prefix. And "zh" does include
Mandarin, after all; it just isn't limited to Mandarin. Similarly, we
write en-boont, not en-US-boont, though there is no Boontling variant
of any other regional variety of English.
> In my mind, the last thing we need is more choices for Chinese
> languages. I believe these tags have potential use in my industry to
> represent the names of Chinese actors and Chinese work titles with
> applications, contracts, internal search mechanisms, and users that
> cannot handle zh/cmn characters. As you know, I have a strong need
> to distinguish audio and written variants (and written Cantonese and
> Mandarin), so the "zh" tag is not a good choice for me.
I have no trouble adding "cmn" as an alternative to "zh" after 4646bis
passes. There is a business need for this distinction right now,
unfortunately.
--
John Cowan cowan at ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"?
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list