doug at ewellic.org
Mon Sep 15 05:30:27 CEST 2008
We have three outstanding registration requests, one for the "Academy"
romanization of Belarusian (as distinct from Taraskievica), one for
Pinyin (however that is defined), and one for Wade-Giles.
The Belarusian proposal has stalled beneath back-and-forth discussions
of what the value of the subtag should be ("academy", "akadem", etc.)
and whether a year should be incorporated in the subtag value to
represent a revision year. The last posts on this topic were on
September 3, when CE Whitehead wrote to express a preference for
"[akadem] or [akademy] or [academy]" and Yury Tarasievich replied:
> The 1959acad and 2010acad, when (if) it is actually introduced, are
> quite fine, for me. Any transliterations, unusual truncations, or
> cryptics are wrong thing.
Because of the continued disagreement over this, I have not posted any
proposed revised records or registration forms to the list.
The Pinyin proposal has been discussed to death and back, still with no
agreement in sight of what the scope of the subtag should be and how the
value should reflect the scope. Some say it should be just Hanyu
Pinyin, as Mark originally proposed; others say it should be any
romanization based on Hanyu Pinyin principles (which would include
Jyutping or Tongyong but would exclude Wade-Giles). There also still
seems to be disagreement over the Prefix fields.
Nobody has suggested moving the Wade-Giles proposal forward by itself,
so both proposals are stalled. Because of the continued disagreement, I
have not posted any proposed revised records or registration forms for
these subtags since August 26, and I would suggest that the forms posted
on August 26 are no longer relevant anyway.
I ask Michael to formally extend the review period by 2 weeks for all
three of these requests. This is required by RFC 4646 and is the right
thing to do.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages