wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs

[Broome, Karen]

Right. So should zh-wadegile and zh-pinyin, if registered, be deprecated on birth of RFC 4646bis? Or would we be better served by suggesting that Mark use a private extension until the "cmn" tag is added?

In my mind, the last thing we need is more choices for Chinese languages. I believe these tags have potential use in my industry to represent the names of Chinese actors and Chinese work titles with applications, contracts, internal search mechanisms, and users that cannot handle zh/cmn characters. As you know, I have a strong need to distinguish audio and written variants (and written Cantonese and Mandarin), so the "zh" tag is not a good choice for me.

Regards,

Karen Broome

>-----Original Message-----
>From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at ccil.org]
>Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 4:16 PM
>To: Broome, Karen
>Cc: Mark Davis; ietf-languages at iana.org
>Subject: Re: wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs
>
>Broome, Karen scripsit:
>
>> Or "zh-cmn-wadegile" etc. if registered under the current registry
>> rather than what's planned for 4646bis. - K.
>
>"zh-cmn" is grandfathered, so it's currently illegal to add "-
>wadegile" to it.
>
>
>--
>Eric Raymond is the Margaret Mead               John Cowan
>of the Open Source movement.                    cowan at ccil.org
>        --Bruce Perens,
>http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
>          some years ago