gerardm at wiktionaryz.org
Fri Nov 24 20:04:49 CET 2006
Doug Ewell schreef:
> Eric Muller <emuller at adobe dot com> wrote:
>> Rather than fight about what a script is (Mark), or equivalently what
>> ISO 15924 is about (Ken), and since the world of language tags is
>> isolated of other standards via its registry anyway, why not just say
>> that the four-chars subtags are orthographies and be done with it?
>> That does not preclude to use (and reuse) the subtag "Latn" as a
>> convenient name for those situations where there is just one (or a
>> single dominant) orthography that uses the Latin script.
> I'm not on board with this. The words "han'gŭl" and "hangeul" are
> both ko-Latn, but the first is McCune-Reischauer while the second is
> Revised Romanization. Both romanization systems are in common use,
> and both are legitimately tagged "ko-Latn". We have no subtags as yet
> to distinguish the two (other than private-use), but besides that, the
> tag is correct: they are both Korean in Latin script.
If it is so clear that they are recognisably different, would it not
make sense to remedy this ambiguity and have a specific tag for both
McCune-Reischauer and Revised Romanization ? These tags are apparently
more significant than the identification of Latn. The question to me is,
if tagging is meant to identify a text so that automated processing can
take place only tagging as ko-Latn does not suffice at all. If the
identification is not intended to significantly identify both the
language and its manifestation, what is its use ?
When ISO-639-6 has to deal with the whole gamut of language families up
to and including orthographies, is it not better to ensure that these
codes are in ISO-639-6? The realisation that currently there is no way
to identify properly what a text is, seems an indication of the failure
of the current codes/system when there is no apparent remedy.
> Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages