LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin
everson at evertype.com
Tue Sep 9 09:45:53 CEST 2008
On 8 Sep 2008, at 23:37, Frank Ellermann wrote:
> 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.
Why? en-fonipa and bo-fonipa are both perfectly reasonable
descriptions of text.
> 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 don't follow you, but I see that you support registering the
"pinyin" tag with
> I'd strip the remark about "omitting Latn", however.
I could live with that but I think in the real world people will omit
> A proper extension registry could arrange that, but the generic
> variant kludge asks for hardcoding this
> info in applications to get the matching right.
I don't follow. What's wrong with tagging bo-Latn-pinyin? It specifies
a particular well-defined orthography for a particular language. I
certainly do not think that bo-Latn-bopinyin would be "better".
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages