Frank Ellermann nobody at
Sun Aug 3 17:16:53 CEST 2008

Kent Karlsson wrote:
> You missed my (rhetorical) point completely.

What you write here is clearly stated on the zho-page
linked in my reply, it is not possible to miss that:

> cmn is the code for one of the languages (Mandarin)
> *encompassed* by the macrolanguage code(s) zh/zho
> (Chinese).

I have also already commented that the <q> real </q>
languages could be added later to the prefixes of
the requested variants.

> zh-Latn-pinyin is in the (current) proposed 
> registration form limited to Mandarin, while 'zh'
> is not limited to Mandarin.

Yes, that would be dubious.  But I don't see Mandarin
in the original or revised registration requests, R2:

| Description: Wade-Giles romanization of Chinese
| Description: Hanyu Pinyin romanization of Chinese

> Pinyin for Cantonese (yue, also encompassed by zh/zho)
> differs in both language and romanization rules.

Old: "Description: Pinyin romanization of Chinese"
That is why R2 updated the original request as proposed
by John, isn't it ?

> Better to state the proper language code in the prefix.

"zh" is the only game in town at the moment.  I don't
expect a "4646bis" anytime soon, let alone in the two
weeks for the review of Mark's requests.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list