[Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

[Peter_Constable at sil.org]

Michael Everson wrote on 04/09/2003 05:46:45 PM:

> >What will it take to convince you?  (This is not a rhetorical question.)
>
> A considered weigh-in from Ken Whistler, Peter Constable, James Seng,
> Mark Davis, and John Jenkins that all the bases are covered.

I think it makes sense to have script-variant IDs Hans and Hant (or other
spellings for the same denotations).



> Remember, the *script* is Hani. We would be encoding TWO script
> variants in 15924. Now that in itself is unusual. Compare
                                          ^not (?)

> Latn/Latg/Latf. The thing is that Latn is still used by itself, but
> if we have Hant/Hans then what function will Hani have?

It may turn out that Hani is not used in RFC3066-type "language" tags, but
I don't see that as a concern. I can easily imagine that Thaa (Thaana) will
never be used in "language" tags. So what? RFC3066bis isn't necessarily the
only potential client for ISO 15924 (though I can't think of other places
it would be needed at the moment), and so there's always a possibility that
Hani will serve a valuable function somewhere even if it doesn't for
RFC3066bis.



> I don't dispute that there are different orthographies for written
> Chinese. I want to make sure that THIS is the best way of reflecting
> this.

I think so.



- Peter


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Constable

Non-Roman Script Initiative, SIL International
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd., Dallas, TX 75236, USA
Tel: +1 972 708 7485