<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>Re: Korean romanizations (Was: Japanese transliteration:
ja-Latn-hepburn)</title>
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:PMingLiU;
panose-1:2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@PMingLiU";
panose-1:2 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode";
panose-1:2 11 6 2 3 5 4 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS";
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt 70.85pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
/* List Definitions */
@list l0
{mso-list-id:1444379114;
mso-list-template-ids:-938051420;}
ol
{margin-bottom:0in;}
ul
{margin-bottom:0in;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think it is valid to question whether the requested ‘hepburn’ subtag
does, or should, or should not include all manner of Hepburn. The requester
clarified his intentions and needs by requesting an additional subtag: that
seems to me to fit within the range of normal discussion concerning a registration
request. He could also have clarified by stating that he wanted only a subtag
for the revised Hepburn originally requested.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I tend to think that all manner of language subtag related things
may be discussed on the list, including encouraging or discouraging people from
requesting specific things (cf. the machine translation thread) or suggesting
various ways of organizing requests, but these discussions become moot if and
when a request is made. If Mark had not agreed to widen his request to include
Tibetan or felt that his request was being damaged by that change, he could
have objected. Similarly, others could have requested the Prefix “bo-Latn”
separately from the original request to arrive at the same result. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>The arbitrariness you are experiencing tends, in my opinion, to
be due to a lack of focus on the process as laid out. It is rare that
requesters are reminded that they do not have to bow to feedback. RFC 5646 *<b>requires</b>*
that the original requester approve any changes to a particular request. “No-no’s”
from list correspondents discouraging a request mean nothing if the request
goes on to be made (of course, if the reasons for the “no-no’s” were valid,
they might influence the decision of the LSR about the subtag, but that is a
separate matter).<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Addison<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Addison Phillips<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Globalization Architect -- Lab126</span><span style='font-size:
9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif";color:#1F497D'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Internationalization is not a feature.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Lucida Sans Unicode","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>It is an architecture.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in 0in 0in 4.0pt'>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
[mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Kent Karlsson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 12, 2009 10:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Peter Constable; Mark Davis<br>
<b>Cc:</b> ietf-languages@iana.org; Doug Ewell<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Korean romanizations (Was: Japanese transliteration:
ja-Latn-hepburn)<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I don't recall anyone urgently needing, and
indeed nobody asked for (it came up during discussion), a subtag
"pinyin" for Tibetan. Still it got registered. And I don't complain
about that. But I do complain (a bit) about the arbitrariness. In the current
line of discussion, originally only "revised Hepburn" was asked for.
This has during discussion been widened and expanded. But somehow stepping over
to Korean results in lots of no-no's. **IF**, perchance, Hepburn romanisation
**had** applied also to Korean, would we then had seen these no-no's? There
wasn't much objection when "pinyin" was widened to cover also Tibetan
as a prefix (something which could have been done later). And why the no-no's
when it is suggested that maybe we should register some well-known romanisation
for Korean? Just arguing a bit in the hypothetical here, since I'm
uncomfortable with too much arbitrariness.<br>
<br>
/kent k<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Den 2009-09-12 18.16, skrev "Peter Constable" <<a
href="petercon@microsoft.com">petercon@microsoft.com</a>>:</span><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I’m inclined to agree with Mark: we could spend a bunch of time
coming up with tags for all kinds of variant text representations with no
knowing which people are actually interested in using. I personally don’t want
to occupy my time that way. When someone needs a subtag for Hangul
Romanization, they’ll come asking, and we’ll sort it out then. I don’t get the
impression Doug has an actual usage need at this time.<br>
<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><br>
</span><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> <a
href="ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no">ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</a>
[<a href="mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no">mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Kent Karlsson<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Saturday, September 12, 2009 3:41 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Mark Davis<br>
<b>Cc:</b> <a href="ietf-languages@iana.org">ietf-languages@iana.org</a>; Doug
Ewell<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: Korean romanizations (Was: Japanese transliteration:
ja-Latn-hepburn)<br>
</span><br>
<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:purple'>See
below.<br>
</span><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'><br>
Den 2009-09-12 02.34, skrev "Mark Davis" <<a
href="mark@macchiato.com">mark@macchiato.com</a>>:<br>
<br>
Mark<br>
<br>
<br>
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:58, Kent Karlsson <<a
href="kent.karlsson14@comhem.se">kent.karlsson14@comhem.se</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
Den 2009-09-11 05.04, skrev "Doug Ewell" <<a
href="doug@ewellic.org">doug@ewellic.org</a>>:<br>
<br>
> Geez, all I had in mind for Korean was registering the three most common<br>
> romanizations, which anyone familiar with Korean could name off the top<br>
> of their head.<br>
<br>
I would suggest that you just submit the appropriate registration forms<br>
to the list. I don't think there is the requirement that the submitter<br>
promises to "start using the subtag for the submitter's immediate
needs",<br>
nor that the submitter has been using the variants for which subtags are<br>
requested. I think the subtags you allude to here are useful enough to be<br>
registered.<br>
<br>
No, but what I'm afraid of is that then someone else will say, well, we might
as well do Thai romanizations, and then Lao, and then Russian, and then...
There is a pretty unending supply of these things.<br>
<br>
<span style='color:purple'>Well, that is what this group is here for...
Processing such requests.</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
<ol start=1 type=1>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>"Are
useful enough to be registered" </span><o:p></o:p></li>
<li class=MsoNormal style='mso-margin-top-alt:auto;mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
mso-list:l0 level1 lfo1'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>"Are
useful enough to be registered, and someone has a need for it"</span><o:p></o:p></li>
</ol>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><span style='font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"'>I'm just saying that as a working process,
#2 gets people what they need, and is manageable by this group. #1 would
completely swamp this group.<br>
<br>
<span style='color:purple'>"Need" does not necessarily mean "we
need this in our system now".<br>
</span><br>
<br>
/kent k<br>
<br>
PS<br>
This is in contrast to trying to register a subtag for a lone pronunciation<br>
quirk (by itself that hardly makes a dialect) or for using old road/highway<br>
names/numbers instead of their newer names/numbers (totally irrelevant for<br>
language tagging, methinks).<br>
<br>
Hardly makes a dialect? If you are referring to the example I gave, of
en-US-socapgfr, it is probably spoken by as many or more people than speak your
native language... <br>
<br>
<span style='color:purple'>Number of speakers does not a dialect make. But I
guess this comes down to where the border between dialect and minor
pronunciation quirk(s) goes. And I'm sure that can be hotly debated. I would
still not count highway reference method (old or new names) as relevant in that
regard. Very few dialects have been registered in LSR. If requests for more of
them come in, I think it would be good to try to align them with how dialectologists
delineate them.<br>
</span>Of course, I was using an extreme example, but it was to make a point.
For *somebody* that level of precision might be important, just as for
*somebody* the distinction between sl-rozaj-biske and sl-rozaj-njiva, or
between sl-rozaj-biske and sl-rozaj-biske-1994 is important. We can't
anticipate all the possible differences that people might need, nor can or
should we try to second guess that in advance, but what we can do is make sure
that the right tags are at the right levels of breadth when we do get requests.<br>
<br>
<span style='color:purple'>But it also makes the registry very uneven when it
comes to variants. I'm not sure how great hopes (or worries) one should have
for ISO 639-6, I have seen neither text nor tabular data for it, but maybe it
could make for a bit more "evenness" w.r.t. variants. (One would have
to reactivate LTRU for using -6 in the LSR...)<br>
<br>
And overly specific variants, such as your "</span>socapgfr<span
style='color:purple'>" example, should not become registered anyway (IMO),
even if someone were to ask for it. This is what private-use subtags are for.<br>
</span>And transliterations are notoriously tricky. What we actually use in
CLDR for Korean, for example, is a "Korean Ministry of Culture &
Tourism Transliteration with Clause 8 And Further Modifications for
Reversibility Because the Source is Underspecified". (<a
href="http://cldr.unicode.org/index/cldr-spec/transliteration-guidelines#Korean">http://cldr.unicode.org/index/cldr-spec/transliteration-guidelines#Korean</a>)<br>
[Just noticed that we need to fix the links; the Ministry keeps moving the
pages around -- sigh.]<br>
<span style='color:purple'><br>
That would surely be overly narrow for a registered variant subtag. Cmp.
"pinyin", "hepburn", ...<br>
<br>
/kent k</span></span><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>