zh-Hant-xx, zh-Hans-xx

Michael Everson everson at evertype.com
Fri Mar 18 17:14:44 CET 2005

At 07:22 -0800 2005-03-18, Mark Davis wrote:
>The following information was collected from John Jenkins, Lee Collins, and
>Richard Cook

That is a some evidence, thank you, Mark. I had a 
discussion with John. It and the evidence you've 
proposed help the debate. But I still think we 
need a debate, if there are any doubts.

ME: You agree with all of Mark Davis and Peter Constable's zh-Han*-** tags?

JJ: Insofar as I understand the discussion, yes.

ME: Peter and Mark propose things to suit their 
algorithms, not necessarily to reflect linguistic 
realities, so I worry. (For instance, Peter 
proposed iu-Cans alongside iu-Cans-CA, which is 
redundant, because iu (and indeed Cans) is only 
ever used in CA.)

JJ: Well, getting the standard to interoperate 
with algorithms is important, too, of course. Not 
that linguistic reality is unimportant. From my 
perspective, the question is, "Is standard 
written Chinese different in Hong Kong from 
Taiwan and/or the PRC-without taking the SC/TC 
distinction into account?" The answer to that 
question is yes. I'm not entirely clear on how 
that distinction should be captured in the world 
of zh-Hanx-xx, but IMHO it should be captured.

ME: May I quote you on the IETF language tags list?

JJ: Yes, but I'd rather not get involved in the 
tug-of-war because I'm not entirely clear on the 
details of the discussion. And, if you do quote 
me, it would only be fair to say that insofar as 
I understand the distinctions that are being 
made, I'm more comfortable with zh-Hant-HK and 
zh-Hant-TW than any of the other alternatives 
which I've seen.... Here's to a peaceful 
resolution of the issueŠ
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography *  * http://www.evertype.com

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list