Subtag registration: Russian transliteration of Chinese

[Michael Everson]

Isn’t what he’s talking about just a Cyrillicization, like Pinyin is a Romanization?

> On 13 Oct 2015, at 12:47, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> 
> Yegor Grebnev wrote:
> 
>> Sorry, it seems that I have misunderstood Doug's original
>> recommendation. Yes, "Chinese transcribed as Russian" seems to be an
>> appropriate option. Thank you!
> 
> So it sounds like Yegor does expect the transformed content to continue
> to be identified primarily as Chinese, not as Russian, where "ru-t-zh"
> or "ru-anything" might imply the latter.
> 
> So, I know RFC 6497 has been around for three and a half years, but I
> guess I'm still a little puzzled by the idea that content in language A,
> transliterated according to the orthographic conventions of language B,
> should result in that content being labeled "language B" according to
> the primary language subtag.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> (English)
> This is a sample sentence.
> 
> (Russian)
> Это образец приговор.
> 
> (Russian, transliterated according to some English-specific convention)
> Eto obrazets prigovor.
> 
> These snippets would be tagged, respectively, as "en", "ru", and
> (according to 6497) "en-t-ru". Is this right?

That can’t be right. “Eto obrezets prigovor” is in no way English.

Michael