LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin
nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de
Tue Sep 9 00:37:25 CEST 2008
Michael Everson wrote:
> I trust that this compromise will prove satisfactory.
Actually this again shows that the possibility of
"generic variants" are a bug in RFC 4646.
What is really needed is an extension registry for
this zoo (fonipa, fonupa, pinyin, ...), but as long
as nobody creates it, and as long as this ugly hole
in RFC 4646 permits such "generic variant" kludges,
go for it.
I'd strip the remark about "omitting Latn", however.
A proper extension registry could arrange that, but
the generic variant kludge asks for hardcoding this
info in applications to get the matching right.
More information about the Ietf-languages