<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
FONT-SIZE: 10pt;
FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<PRE> <BR>Hi!<BR>I personally support Michael Everson's solution--to create a list of prefixes for the [pinyin] subtag, to treat the [wadegile] Romanization as separate, and that we need a suppress-script for variants.</PRE><PRE>Hope that is not too far from what Mark Davis wanted when he asked for the subtags.<BR> <BR> <BR>Thanks!<BR> <BR> <BR>C. E. Whitehead<BR><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> <BR> <BR>From: Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com><BR>> Wade-Giles is not Pinyin. It does not derive from Pinyin orthographic<BR>> conventions. Tibetan Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin do, as do other uses<BR>> of Latin in romanizations used in China for Sino-Tibetan and other<BR>> languages.<BR> <BR>> It is probable that Wade-Giles conventions were used for languages<BR>> other than Mandarin, but the point is that we're looking to approve<BR>> both "wadegile" and "pinyin" subtags here.<BR> <BR>> I'm not convinced that these subtags should be restricted as has been<BR>> proposed to zh- or zh-Latn. Evidently there is some programmatic<BR>> utility to keeping -Latn following whatever prefix (zh-, bo-) though I<BR>> have yet to feel consensus amongst you as to whether zh-pinyin and zh-<BR>> Latn-pinyin should both be "allowed". It seems to me that both are<BR>> inevitable and that the revision should permit Suppress-script to be<BR>> attached to subtags like fonipa/fonupa/pinyin to prevent the<BR>> inevitable omission of -Latn-.<BR> <BR> <BR>Agreed.<BR> <BR> <BR>> But in any case I do believe that bo-<BR>> (Latn-)pinyin is appropriately subtagged by "pinyin" and despite the<BR>> fact that the requesters were only requesting Mandarin, there's more<BR>> beneath the hood than that.<BR> <BR>> Either we have no Prefix at all or we list a set of prefixes that we<BR>> know at present can be used with the subtag and presumably add more in<BR>> future.<BR> <BR> <BR>I think this is the best solution--if there is general support for it!<BR> <BR>. . .<BR>> Michael Everson * <A href="http://www.evertype.com/" target=_blank>http://www.evertype.com</A><<A href="http://www.evertype.com/" target=_blank>http://www.evertype.com/</A>><BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org><BR>Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin<BR> <BR>> CE Whitehead scripsit:<BR> <BR>>> I agree with Frank that what is important is somehow<BR>>> telling the search engines and such that this is [latn] script.<BR> <BR>>> Search engines (a) ignore language tags anyhow, and (b) don't need to<BR>>> be told what script something is in. Script subtags are mostly for<BR>>> non-electronic documents and use in locales and such.<BR> <BR> <BR>Hi, John:<BR> <BR> <BR>I think the argument that I was responding to is that the script subtag helps to identify the kind of orthography when the variant subtag is not known. So I continue to consider the suppress-script field is the best solution!<BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>--C. E. Whitehead<BR>cewcathar@hotmail.com<BR></PRE></body>
</html>