<div dir="ltr">There is nothing in BCP47 that prevents registration of overlapping subtags, so it is (as you said) allowed.<div><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Broome, Karen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com">Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I think this is a very key point and one on which BCP 47 may not provide a clear answer. Are overlapping tag semantics allowed?<br>
<br>
To use an example from an earlier request, if one user needed a specific tag for the 1959 "academy" variant of Belarusian and another user required the Academy variant with no respect to the various revisions, could both tags be assigned? I think your analogy with respect to Mark Twain is quite relevant and I believe this is why the last few requests have been delayed. Attempting to come up with a perfect mutually exclusive tagging mechanism for variants may ultimately not serve the needs of users.<br>
<br>
I think we need to accept that overlapping semantics in variant tags is allowed while still keeping an eye out for tags which can be shared across languages.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
<br>
Karen Broome<br>
<br>
________________________________________<br>
From: <a href="mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no">ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</a> [<a href="mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no">ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</a>] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison [<a href="mailto:addison@amazon.com">addison@amazon.com</a>]<br>
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:33 PM<br>
To: CE Whitehead; <a href="mailto:ietf-languages@iana.org">ietf-languages@iana.org</a><br>
Subject: RE: pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
I note that Mark has requested a subtag for explicitly Hanyu Pinyin and not for any other kind of Pinyin. While it is possible for Hanyu (other) pinyin's to be included into a single subtag, I can't tell if that would meet Mark's requirements or not. I would be very astonished and not all that well served if I were to request a subtag 'twain' [to identify the dialect usage of writer Mark Twain] and got instead '1880' [to identify dialectical usages of late-19th-Century American writers] instead. Yes, one encompasses the other. But that doesn't necessarily meet the requirements I am trying to address, and, in this case, which we, as a group, might not fully know.<br>
<br>
Mark, as the requester, do you have an opinion or requirements related to this?<br>
<br>
Addison<br>
<br>
Addison Phillips<br>
Globalization Architect -- Lab126<br>
<br>
Internationalization is not a feature.<br>
It is an architecture.<br>
<br>
<br>
> -----Original Message-----<br>
> From: <a href="mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no">ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ietf-languages-">ietf-languages-</a><br>
> <a href="mailto:bounces@alvestrand.no">bounces@alvestrand.no</a>] On Behalf Of CE Whitehead<br>
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:08 PM<br>
> To: <a href="mailto:ietf-languages@iana.org">ietf-languages@iana.org</a><br>
> Subject: pinyin (and wadegile) request has gotten derailed<br>
><br>
><br>
> Hi, John, Randy, others:<br>
> Thanks for the information; I think I'm agreed with John here that<br>
> Cantonese Pinyin should not be included in the subtag [pinyin] but<br>
> that Tibetan Pinyin can be--and optionally so can Tongyong Pinyin.<br>
><br>
> --C. E. Whitehead<br>
> <a href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</a><br>
><br>
> John Cowan cowan at <a href="http://ccil.org" target="_blank">ccil.org</a><br>
> Tue Sep 16 15:05:27 CEST 2008<br>
><br>
> > Randy Presuhn scripsit:<br>
><br>
> >>> 1. How different is the Tongyong Pinyin romanization (the<br>
> alternate<br>
> >>> Taiwanese romanization) of Mandarin from the Hanyu Pinyin<br>
> romanization<br>
> >>> of Mandarin?<br>
> >><br>
> >> About as different as Pinyin and Wade-Gile.<br>
><br>
> > Quantitatively, no. Of the 412 Modern Standard Mandarin<br>
> syllables<br>
> > (disregarding tone), Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin differ in<br>
> the<br>
> > spelling of only 81 of them, whereas HYPY and Wade-Giles differ<br>
> in the<br>
> > spelling of 270 of them. The only things that TYPY and WG have<br>
> in common<br>
> > are that they don't have the features, peculiar to HYPY, of<br>
> separating<br>
> > the alveolopalatals by writing different initials and of eliding<br>
> central<br>
> > vowels in certain triphthong rhymes.<br>
><br>
> Thanks for the info!<br>
><br>
> >>> 2. And how different is Tibetan Pinyin from Hanyu Pinyin?<br>
><br>
> > By contrast, Tibetan Pinyin is as like HYPY as the nature of<br>
> Tibetan<br>
> > will allow it to be.<br>
> That was my understanding<br>
> >> I see no problem with having to use a meta-content description<br>
> tag<br>
> >> to distinguish Tibetan from Hanyu pinyin until [cmn] and other<br>
> codes<br>
> >> become available)<br>
><br>
> > I don't see what 'cmn' has to do with it. Tibetan is in no way<br>
> part of 'zh'.<br>
> My mistake--I was thinking of Tongyong Pinyin which is a part of<br>
> [zh] but [cmn] won't help there either!<br>
> > The whole point of language tagging is distinguishing languages<br>
> and<br>
> > their important variants. To do things which would obscure the<br>
> > distinction between two indisputably distinct languages would be<br>
> > counterproductive.<br>
><br>
> > The various Soviet Turkic languages are also indisputably<br>
> distinct,<br>
> > but we managed to assign a single tag to cover the Jangalif<br>
> orthography<br>
> > for all of them.<br>
> That's the example I thought of.<br>
> >> (Alas, since Tongyong Pinyin and Hanyu Pinyin are both for<br>
> Mandarin,<br>
> >> ISO 639-3 codes will not help to distinguish these two if they<br>
> need<br>
> >> to be distinguished with something other than a description in a<br>
> >> meta tag. That's the only problem I can foresee with lumping<br>
> the<br>
> >> two together for now.)<br>
> ><br>
> > This is a strong argument for *not* merging the two.<br>
><br>
> The obvious tactic is zh-(Latn)-TW-pinyin vs. zh-(Latn)-CN-pinyin.<br>
> Admittedly, zh-TW has been used to mean zh-Hant in the past, but<br>
> this<br>
> is a truly appropriate use of TW for the orthography specific to<br>
> Taiwan.<br>
><br>
> This is problematic though as both Hanyu Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin<br>
> seem to be used in Taiwan--but it would serve to distinguish the<br>
> two official orthographies.<br>
><br>
> Another option I thought of:<br>
><br>
><br>
> [pinynprc]<br>
><br>
> [pinyntwn]<br>
><br>
> or [pinyntai]<br>
><br>
> but these are totally obscure and non-transparent; however an<br>
> option is t o use [pinyin] for all similar Romanizations used in<br>
> the People's Republic of China and use some other name (such as<br>
> [tongyong]?) for the other variety.<br>
><br>
> >> Reading online I understand that Cantonese Pinyin is quite<br>
> distant<br>
> >> (correct me if I'm wrong) from Hanyu Pinyin --<br>
> ><br>
> > Yes.<br>
><br>
> > I agree. This should not be tagged with the wide-scope 'pinyin'<br>
> subtag,<br>
> > although I suppose it sometimes will be.<br>
> Thanks for the reply; agreed!<br>
> --<br>
> > John Cowan cowan at <a href="http://ccil.org" target="_blank">ccil.org</a> <a href="http://ccil.org/~cowan" target="_blank">http://ccil.org/~cowan</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" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</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" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
<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" target="_blank">http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>