Duplicate Busters: Survey #2

[CE Whitehead]

Hi, I think I understand Kent Karlsson to be saying that Hangul,  Hangŭl, and Hangeul should all be kept as description fields.  If so, then I am in agreement (but I'm not an expert so I'd be willing to listen to other arguments-- I did not get John Cowan's reasoning for retaining just the first and third of these three fields.)  I think it's better to list the different ways the names are spelled as it makes the description more easily recognized.  (It would help me to see a particular spelling I was used to.)
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com 
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>> Subject: Duplicate Busters: Survey #2
> Type: script> Subtag: Hang> Description: Hangul> Description: Hang&#x16D;l> Description: Hangeul > (Technically I should not be including Hangeul, which is a different > transcription of the same Korean word, not a genuinely different 
> name. > Make your own judgment.)
 From: "Kent Karlsson" kent.karlsson14 at comhem.seTo: "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru at ietf.org>, <ietf-languages at iana.org>> Doug Ewell wrote:> > 1. Two Description fields are identical, [...]> > or one contains letters with > > diacritical marks while the other is a pure-ASCII> > equivalent (i.e. all > > diacritical marks stripped). [...] The > > premise is that both Description fields convey> > the exact same content, > > but using slightly different typography. ... > I do **NOT** agree with the position that removing diacritial> marks would be "slightly different typography". It is a difference> in spelling, much the same as differences in spelling that you> excluded from your list ["(such as Kirghiz vs. Kyrgyz, or Dhivehi> vs. Divehi)"] and thus want to keep as multiple names.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080801/92887f5e/attachment.htm