Mark Davis mark.davis at
Sat Aug 2 19:24:09 CEST 2008

I disagree. We need this now, and John's strategy of adding zh-cmn and cmn
as prefixes once 4646bis is in place will work just fine.

On Sat, Aug 2, 2008 at 3:36 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at>wrote:

> 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> 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<>
>> 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...

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list