4646 bug ? (was: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin)
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Sat Sep 6 23:49:15 CEST 2008
Michael Everson wrote:
> Who of you now disagrees with this?
When you proposed to drop Latn from the prefix I
was not sure about it, but finally arrived at a
"good enough" conclusion.
Dropping the script is consistent with "fonipa".
Keeping it is inconsistent, we have no "*-Latn"
prefix for "fonipa", because "*" is not allowed.
There are still obscure points in RFC 4646 where
it is far from obvious how 4646bis could settle
More information about the Ietf-languages