LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: pinyin
gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun Aug 3 22:37:19 CEST 2008
Pinyin is ambiguous. There are several Pinyins around linked to zho
absolutely different and consequently this tag should not be acceptable.
On Sun, Aug 3, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy.claranet.de>wrote:
> 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.
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages