Why not? [Re: [Fwd]: Response to Mark's message]
Scripts2 at sesame.demon.co.uk
Thu Apr 10 18:13:36 CEST 2003
In message <NDBBLCBLIMDOPKMOPHLHAEIBFAAA.jon at spin.ie> "Jon Hanna" writes:
> > In message <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
Absolutely we should deal with the two concepts separately, but
sometimes they need to be brought together.
Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other.
Each _is_ separate (in two different standards, ISO 639 and ISO
15924). Each can be (or could be) brought together in ISO 3066bis,
through subtag mechanisms.
Just as elements from each of ISO 639 and ISO 3166 can be brought
together in ISO 3066bis, through subtag mechanisms, already.
I'd certainly want to see that distinction in some cases.
Director and Editor
Keytempo directory of musicians
Keytempo Limited (Information Management),
8 Avenue Rd, Harrogate, HG2 7PG, United Kingdom.
Tel: 01423 888 432 (mobile: 07766 711 395)
Email: keylist at sesame.demon.co.uk
More information about the Ietf-languages