I agree.<br><br clear="all">Mark<br>
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:17, Michael Everson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:everson@evertype.com">everson@evertype.com</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;">
<div class="im">On 9 Sep 2009, at 00:00, CE Whitehead wrote:<br>
<br>
> I still think that [pinyin] and [wadegile] can serve as precedents<br>
> for how we treat [hepburn] ! But I'm not sure I see a consensus on<br>
> this point.<br>
><br>
> Mark wrote:<br>
> "I think all we really need is hepburn at this point. Like<br>
> everything, there will be subvariants, but until and unless people<br>
> have a need for them, we should focus on the principal requirement."<br>
><br>
> Doug wrote:<br>
> "As long as 'hepburn' is still available to mean "any variety of<br>
> Hepburn," and the additional subtags would have a Prefix of<br>
> "ja-Latn-hepburn", I am fine with that."<br>
<br>
</div>My view is that the pinyin model serves here. "hepburn" should mean<br>
"any variety of Hepburn".<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
Michael Everson * <a href="http://www.evertype.com/" target="_blank">http://www.evertype.com/</a><br>
</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><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>