niall.tracey at logica.com
Mon Sep 15 14:26:52 CEST 2008
Doug Ewell said:
> Nobody has suggested moving the Wade-Giles proposal forward by itself,
> so both proposals are stalled.
The main objection to zh-pinyin (lack of script subtag) also goes for zh-wadegile.
There appears to be a majority view in favour of a zh-Latn prefix for Hanyu (although there isn't a consensus on the tag itself, which I think can be logically assumed to be a consensus in favour of the same thing for Wade-Giles.
If we're happy that the Hanyu form will go through as zh-Latn, then I would've thought we could resubmit -wadegile with that and get it moving.
Let's make the choice on Latn/no script and make it formal by putting through wadegile in one form or another, agreeing that we're not going to do it differently for Hanyu, then we can let the Hanyu debate focus purely on the semantics of "pinyin".
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied, disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
More information about the Ietf-languages