Doug Ewell doug at
Thu Jul 31 07:13:49 CEST 2008

Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

> Agreed. Any other changes people think we should make?

1. Since both variants have a prefix of "zh-Latn", it might be 
considered redundant for the Description fields to say "Pinyin 
romanization of Chinese" and "Wade-Giles romanization of Chinese".  This 
is a minor quibble which I also have with descriptions like "The San 
Giorgio dialect of Resian", attached to a record with prefix "sl-rozaj" 
which already implies Resian.

2. By making the prefix "zh-Latn" instead of "zh", you are essentially 
requiring taggers to write "zh-Latn-pinyin" instead of "zh-pinyin", or 
"zh-Latn-TW-wadegile" instead of "zh-TW-wadegile".  I assume this is 
what you want.  It seems a bit contrary to what we discussed in LTRU 
about "fonipa" not requiring "Latn".

Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14  ˆ

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list