Status of zh-* proposals

Michael Everson everson at
Sat Mar 5 22:13:54 CET 2005

At 13:01 -0800 2005-03-05, Doug Ewell wrote:
>I was wondering about the status of the 10 proposals submitted a month
>ago by Mark Davis, for tags of the form zh-{Hans, Hant}-{CN, HK, MO, SG,

Same as this:

>>What I see is a proliferation of tags with identical referents, and 
>>I don't see why that should be necessary or useful. I'm not 
>>particularly thick, either -- but neither do I see a bunch of 
>>*other* people on this list turning this around and explaining it 
>>to me why it's a good idea, and a needful one.
>>So I approved tg-Arab and tg-Cyrl (where was tg-Latn?), but not the 
>>ones specific to -TJ, because that seemed redundant.
>>I haven't "rejected" them, but I can't say that a case has been 
>>made -- or that opinion is overwhelming so that even if I don't 
>>"get it" I should trust the consensus of the community.
>>Please, community, duke it out and come to consensus.

>In any case, it should be possible to demonstrate, using these book
>references or otherwise, that (for instance) zh-TW differs from zh-HK,
>that both can be and are written in either Hans or Hant, and that there
>is a need to tag all four of these situations.

I would like Mark and Peter to get James Seng's explicit view on 
this, for instance. He knows a lot about IDN, and about Chinese.
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list