I would agree with Michael that tt-Latn is already available to describe Tatar in Latin script, so that can be used right now.<br><br>The only need for variants would be if there were substantially different competing orthographic systems for Tatar in Latin. In that case, it is certainly possible to add one or more variant subtags to distinguish those variants; we do that in many cases. However, we should not move on this particular request until we have settled the general issue of dealing with different transliteration schemes.
<br><br>Mark<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/21/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Michael Everson</b> <<a href="mailto:everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
RFC 4646 doesn't encode "alphabets". It seems to me that tt-Latn is<br>already available to describe Tatar in Latin script.<br>--<br>Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com">http://www.evertype.com</a>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>Ietf-languages mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no">Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no</a><br><a href="http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages">
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br></blockquote></div><br>