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
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 issue
Michael Everson * * Everson Typography * * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages