LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

[Doug Ewell]

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> 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.

The question of whether to assign "zh" or "zh-Latn" as the Prefix for 
'pinyin' has NOTHING to do with generic variants.  Where did that come 
from?  Nobody has seriously proposed making 'pinyin' a generic variant 
like 'fonipa'.  At most they have suggested that a small set of 
languages be added as multiple Prefix fields.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ