Correction for pinyin

[Phillips, Addison]

I don't think it matters which field is used, but I do think that, having spotted this particular item, it would make sense to provide some information in the registry about it. The real problem is that someone needs to fill in a request form.

It might be easier for registry maintainers if we used a Comments field. There is a requirement in BCP 47 for the first description field to match ("whenever possible") the Reference Name in ISO 639-3 (last paragraph of Section 3.1.5). Adding some parenthetical information to the description shouldn't interfere with this, but it might make automation of registry checking more difficult.

Addison

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2010 7:12 AM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Correction for pinyin
> 
> Mark Davis ☕ wrote:
> 
> > The main goal of the Description is not to completely describe
> the
> > language tag; instead, it is to distinguish it from other tags
> with
> > which it could be confused.
> 
> Of course.  But a great many languages have names (including ISO
> 639
> names and Description fields) which could potentially be confused
> with
> others.
> 
> > So given that it is a quite natural mistake to think that the
> term
> > "Pinyin" means what 99% of those knowing the word think it means
> > (applying to over a billion people), rather than the minute
> fraction
> > of a percent who would realize that it means something quite
> different
> > (applying to 27K people), we owe it to readers to be quite clear
> about
> > this.
> 
> I don't dispute that, but I also think most users of the Registry
> (and
> for that matter ISO 639), when they see an entry that puzzles them,
> might find out from a neutral standpoint what it means, rather than
> assuming the standards organization is clueless.  The RA really
> does
> understand that a transcription scheme is not a language.
> 
> > What you suggest is probably adequate, but we might go so far as:
> >
> > Pinyin (a Niger-Congo language spoken in Cameroon)
> 
> Just to be clear for all, you support putting this information in
> the
> Description, while I support putting it in a Comments field.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages