IPA AGAIN was RE: [Ltru] Google and marking the languages
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Thu Nov 23 00:08:57 CET 2006
> In relation to our recent discussion regarding phonetic
> transcriptions, it would be a serious mistake to be misled by
> statistics about Web documents.
My comments were aimed at the statistics for web documents of which there
are one or two :-)
> IMO, the primary need for tags for phonetic transcription is
> not in Web pages but rather in documentation of some 7000
> languages recorded by linguists all over the world, held in
> various language data archives, and contained primarily in
> xml files using various schemas.
Yes, the archive industry is huge, without a doubt. And, I can see their
needs quite clearly. I assume they are using RFC4646 and thus would be
amenable to a variant subtag as proposed by Michael?
> Linguists around the world are very much engaged in such
> documentation projects, and they are depending on standards
> for various purposes to make the data that is compiled
> interoperable and enduring. Language tagging is an important
> aspect of standardization for language documentation, and
> tagging of content in various phonetic transcriptions is an
> important aspect of their language tagging needs.
Indeed. But, given that IPA is considered by some to be out of scope for
ISO 15924, can we discuss any reasons why Michael's proposals will not meet
If any valid reasons are accepted by the majority of IETF-languages (or LTRU
for that matter) then we can go to proposal number two (Ken) and petition
the JAC of ISO 15924 to change the scope or just allow the tag. If that
fails, you can always register a variant of any written language in IPA with
ISO 639-6 (as a last resort, of course).
Of course, this does not, in any way, prevent any one person from
petitioning the ISO 15924 JAC of their own accord.
> Peter Constable
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
More information about the Ietf-languages