Why not? [Re: [Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]

[Jon Hanna]

> In message <p05200a06babb085bdda3@[195.218.107.154]> Michael
> Everson writes:
> > At 07:23 -0400 2003-04-10, John Cowan wrote:
> > >Michael Everson scripsit:
> > >
> > >>  IPA is a special use of Latin, but it's still Latin.
> > >
> > >Perhaps what is needed is a notion of "script subsets", which would
> > >include Hans, Hant, and Ipal.  In this way we could clearly
> discriminate
> > >between, say, English in ordinary orthography (en) and in IPA
> transcription
> > >(en-ipal).
> >
> > But why?
>
> But why not? Surely it is useful to make such distinctions sometimes,
> especially the example given of Ipal.

The possibility of a need for such fine-grained identifiers for scripts
would further complicate the language codes above the complication of
dealing with scripts at all.

Another justification for my view that we should deal with the two
separately?