LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: pinyin

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
In that case it makes sense to wait for RFC4646bis because the information
is to precise to be included with zh.
Thanks,
     Gerard

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM, John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen scripsit:
>
> > In this thread it is stated that keeping the redundant information of
> > Latn makes sense. The information that pinyin and Legge is exclusive
> > to Mandarin is not redundant.  In my opinion, this should be made
> > clear. Consequently I think if it must be then zh-cmn-Latn-pinyin or
> > zh-cmn-Latn-legge is a better choice. And yes, in my opinion the Latn
> > is indeed redundant .. but if you must have it ....
>
> At present, we are not allowed by RFC 4646 to add variant subtags to
> zh-cmn.  That will change when RFC 4646bis finally goes into effect,
> and then we can add zh-cmn and cmn (which will both be valid, unless
> there is another random shift in the cosmos) to the prefixes.
>
> --
> John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan<http://ccil.org/%7Ecowan>
> If I have seen farther than others, it is because I was standing on
> the shoulders of giants.
>        --Isaac Newton
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080802/69353011/attachment.htm