xx-XX-nnnn vs. xx-nnnn in Chinese and German

Michael Everson everson@evertype.com
Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:14:08 +0000

At 15:32 -0600 2002-02-13, Peter_Constable@sil.org wrote:
>On 02/13/2002 02:57:58 PM Torsten Bronger wrote:
>>Mmmh... what's wrong with the "canonical" approach?
>>             Language   Subform   Orthography
>My main concern with this is that "Subform" is neither defined, nor is
>there any guidance as to in what kinds of applications or usage scenarios
>it's likely to be relevant. Meaning that people will use it willy-nilly
>whenever it suits their fancy, meaning lots of inconsistency. If we
>resolved those kinds of issues, I probably wouldn't have any concerns with
>whatever else follows.

Well the triad is already different for how we deal with the sgn tag, 
though we have agreed that the sgn tag is a special case warranting 
different treatment.
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com