<div dir="ltr">Hoi,<br>In that case it makes sense to wait for RFC4646bis because the information is to precise to be included with zh.<br>Thanks,<br><font color="#888888"> Gerard</font><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, John Cowan <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Gerard Meijssen scripsit:<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
> In this thread it is stated that keeping the redundant information of<br>
> Latn makes sense. The information that pinyin and Legge is exclusive<br>
> to Mandarin is not redundant. In my opinion, this should be made<br>
> clear. Consequently I think if it must be then zh-cmn-Latn-pinyin or<br>
> zh-cmn-Latn-legge is a better choice. And yes, in my opinion the Latn<br>
> is indeed redundant .. but if you must have it ....<br>
<br>
</div>At present, we are not allowed by RFC 4646 to add variant subtags to<br>
zh-cmn. That will change when RFC 4646bis finally goes into effect,<br>
and then we can add zh-cmn and cmn (which will both be valid, unless<br>
there is another random shift in the cosmos) to the prefixes.<br>
<br>
--<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">John Cowan <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</a> <a href="http://ccil.org/%7Ecowan" target="_blank">http://ccil.org/~cowan</a><br>
</div>If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on<br>
the shoulders of giants.<br>
--Isaac Newton<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>