<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! I do think that [kunrei] is a good name for a subtag and that there is a need for it perhaps, even if it is a small group that will use it; but you are right, Frank did ask for it mainly to 'tile the plane' since he was asked to do so.
For that reason, and--especially if there is a problem describing it--I can wait till someone more expert requests it.
Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Tue Oct 6 05:50:46 CEST 2009
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
>>> Yes. I contend that "any romanization of Japanese that fits the
>>> Hepburn model better than it fits other models" is a good definition,
>>> is reasonably concise, and ought to be used in the registration.
>>
>> This definition sounds fine, but Doug said not for the description
>> field--in the comments maybe??
> The Hepburn-related subtags have completed their two-week review period,
> have been submitted to IANA, and have been added to the Registry. See
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry .
</PRE><PRE>Hmm, I can't find these in Richard Ishida's utility (<A href="http://rishida.net/utils/subtags/">http://rishida.net/utils/subtags/</A>); and alas, I am having a terrible, terrible problem downloading the registry (I thought it was my new mini mini mini but I can no longer download it at the library computer either).
> New registration forms can be submitted to this list if it is felt that
> users, upon finding one subtag for "Hepburn romanization" and another
> for "Hepburn romanization, Library of Congress method," the second of
> which takes the first as part of its Prefix, will still be incapable of
> understanding that the first is intended to be general.
(I don't see how this will not be understandable. Oh well. ???)
>> I don't think it's completely clear that [kunrei] should not be
>> registered as it is well enough defined--I agree with Randy that we
>> don't need to build a perfect tree here --that would be impossible; if
>> we saw at a later date that the [kunrei] subtag should have as its
>> prefix some other subtag in addition [ja-Latn] we would need to
>> deprecate [kunrei] though which would be a shame as it's a convenient
>> name so I'm willing to wait to register [kunrei]-- but I'm also
>> willing to wager that the prefix [ja-Latn] is what [kunrei] will
>> ultimately get!
> There were a few arguments against registering 'kunrei' at present,
> among which were that nobody had asked for it except to tile the
I think Frank mentioned that the kunrei romanization was taught in Japanese schools and that there were users in Japan who preferred the kunrei romanization of Japanese
(http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2009-September/009476.html)
but yes, Frank added a registration request for [kunrei] because
"a question was raised over the initial proposal to file Hepburn
only, without distinguishing it from something else -- kunrei is the
something else."
> and that the differences between Kunrei-shiki and Nihon-shiki were not
> being treated consistently with the differences between flavors of
> Kunrei-shiki.
Yes.
> But I don't remember anyone doubting that "ja-Latn" would
> be the appropriate Prefix for Kunrei-shiki.
O.k. (What I was referring to was Frank's comment [http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/2009-September/009477.html]
that:
"In that case, as you say, "kunrei" may not even be the best
top-level subtag for that category of variants, and the sorting out of
that corner of the mess should perhaps best be left to another day.")</PRE><PRE> </PRE><PRE>Best,
C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar@hotmail.com
</PRE> </body>
</html>