LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM: pinyin
petercon at microsoft.com
Thu Jul 31 07:56:58 CEST 2008
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> 1. Since both variants have a prefix of "zh-Latn", it might be
> considered redundant for the Description fields to say "Pinyin
Please, let's not go overboard is trying to eliminate all redundancy from the descriptions. I'd rather see descriptions that have as little possibility of being misunderstood as possible -- and as we all know error-recovery requires redundancy, so I think some redundancy may sometimes be helpful to avoid misinterpretation.
> 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".
I'm inclined to think it a mistake for "fonipa" not to require "Latn". The semantic principle we use in combining subtags is that subtags added on the end add specificity / narrow the extension for the overall semantic. Just as "Resian" qualifies "Slovenian", so also "IPA" qualifies "Latin"; and comparably just as we would *not* consider proposing that "rozaj" could be used without the "sl" prefix, so also it seems entirely reasonable to me that "fonipa" could/should be used with "Latn". Similarly, my initial reaction to the proposal is that having "zh-Latn" as the prefix in each case is fine.
More information about the Ietf-languages