<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
<BR><PRE>Hi.</PRE><PRE>Here is the description field from Frank's current hepburn subtag request:</PRE><PRE>
> Description: Revised Hepburn romanization.
Kent Karlsson is right; Frank Bennett's request does seem only to cover the "Revised Hepburn romanization."
Kent Karlsson <A title="Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants" href="mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no?Subject=Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants&In-Reply-To=53208a5f0909012049u365bb65br7197a06425528a2a@mail.gmail.com">kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se </A><BR>Wed Sep 2 10:37:28 CEST 2009 </PRE><PRE><BR></PRE><PRE>> I support "Frank's third revised proposal" (to be split into three
> submissions...).
> Note that it covers only Revised Hepburn (not too keen on the word
> "romanization", but that is very minor). Contrary to Doug's messages,
> it does not cover other variants of Hepburn transcription/transliteration.
> That may need a bit more discussion (IMHO), esp. since the Wikipedia
> article says "In Japan itself, there are three variants officially
> mandated for various uses...".
Thanks for noting that the different variants are mandated for various uses in Japan. I am not the expert on Japanese on this list,</PRE><PRE>but it seems from the information in the Wikipedia article you cite that revised Hepburn may be the</PRE><PRE>Japanese "Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport standard"???<BR>(I'm inferring this from the handling of the 'n':<BR></PRE><PRE>". . . the rendering of syllabic <I>n</I> as <I>m</I> before certain
<FONT face="Courier New">consonants is not used" </FONT></PRE>
<FONT face="Courier New"><BR>in either Revised Hepburn or in the variety used by the Ministry of Land, Infrastruture, and Transport),<BR>as well as the orthography used by the Library of Congress??
</FONT><BR>
<FONT face="Courier New">I don't have that much of a problem with [hepburn]'s referring to this one variety--it's first come, first serve here, but Kent Karlsson does bring up some important issues. <BR></FONT><BR><PRE>> It also detaches nihon-shiki as not being a variant of kunrei-shiki.
> (An earlier proposal had the subtag "kunrei" covering both kunrei-shiki
> and nihon-shiki, which maybe was not intended.)
???</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Here is the earlier proposal I think Kent is referring to:</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE> > Type: variant
> Subtag: kunrei
> Description: Kunrei-shiki romanization.
> Prefix: ja-Latn
> Type: variant
> Subtag: nihonshiki
> Description: Nihon-shiki romanization, as defined in ISO-3602 Strict.
> Prefix: ja-Latn
It looks to me like the subtag name has now been changed??? (from [nihonshiki] to [nihon]??)</PRE><PRE>Best,
--C. E. Whitehead</PRE><PRE><A href="mailto:cewcathar@hotmail.com">cewcathar@hotmail.com</A> </PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>> /kent k
</PRE></body>
</html>