LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

[Peter Constable]

Maybe no precedent, but several have indicated a preference to recommend "zh-Latn-pinyin".

(For all the same reasons, I have all along wished we could have given *-Latn as the prefix for fonipa, but 4646 doesn't allow that.)


Peter
________________________________
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson [everson at evertype.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 07, 2008 9:43 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

On 7 Sep 2008, at 17:35, John Cowan wrote:

Michael Everson scripsit:

So, what helps us move forward here?

We must choose what is recommended, rather than what is permitted.
Are we recommending that people use "zh-Latn-pinyin" rather than simply
"zh-pinyin", or are we making no such recommendation?  All other questions
are already settled.

Insofar as we make no recommendation as to whether fi-fonipa or fi-fonupa or fi-Latn-fonipa or fi-Latn-fonupa is used, I find no precedent to make a recommendation for such a distinction for either pinyin or wadegile.

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com<http://www.evertype.com/>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080907/4d2f5188/attachment.htm