wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs

[Phillips, Addison]

We’re waiting for one of the co-chairs to decide if he will run a working group last call and, if so, when.

Let’s assume that this last call starts tomorrow and is two weeks long and results in closure on the document (that’s three assumptions!). After that would be publication of an IESG review and last call, which cannot be shorter than four weeks. So I think it safe to say that we are at least eight weeks from the “4646bis” era and more probably (let’s be realistic) somewhat longer than that.

So you shouldn’t withhold judgment on this pair in hopes that 4646bis will “rescue” us from prefix problems. You can, of course, reject them, although, like John Cowan, I don’t see a reason why you would need to.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 5:52 PM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs

On 26 Aug 2008, at 00:52, Mark Davis wrote:


I believe the answer was stated. We're applying for a tag for Chinese Hanyu Pinyin and Wade-Giles romanizations. That cannot be done with prefixes of cmn or zh-cmn according to RFC 4646, which is the current specification in force for the IANA language subtag registry. If and when RFC4646bis passes,

May I ask what the prognosis is for that?


Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com<http://www.evertype.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080825/aeb7f29f/attachment-0001.htm