[Fwd: Re: Here's what I have to say aboutthat?]

James Seng jseng at pobox.org.sg
Wed May 28 15:23:14 CEST 2003

Okay. I was wondering why I only got bits and pieces of the discussion 
and just found out that I was not subscribed to this list :P

-James Seng

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Here's what I have to say aboutthat?
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:11:06 +0800
From: James Seng <jseng at pobox.org.sg>
To: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
CC: ietf-languages at iana.org, Ken Whistler <kenw at sybase.com>
<OF29294BEA.613E70E8-ON86256D33.001B7AF4-86256D33.003E5B90 at sil.org> 
<3ED2DD7A.5050008 at webmethods.com> 
<p05200a06baf92b8a9013@[]> <3ED38070.60301 at webmethods.com> 

> James Seng told me that Singapore uses Hans, but that its use of Hans is 
> different than that used in CN. So zh-Hans doesn't work for Singapore. 
> So, how do we deal with this? And what about zh-hakka, in Hant or Hans?

Erm, let me clarify: Singapore use Simplified Chinese based on China.
There are many similarity but there are differences.

However, the orthographic differences is more apparent to the layman the
script differences. So for writting system, you probably dont notice a
lot of differences between Singapore and China Simplified Chinese with a

> Because the Tag Reviewer needs to have rules that can be applied 
> generally, and it is easy to see that zh- has been extended, and that if 
> script codes are added, there is a syntactic element which needs to be 
> addressed.

Perhaps we need to work out a rule for addition to RFC 3066 tags?

-James Seng

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list