LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

[Peter Constable]

You seem to be re-visiting "zh" in the prefix; is that really what you intend? I thought there was consensus that the intent was a subtag for a Mandarin orthography alone.

The reason that fonipa doesn't have a prefix is that it truely is applicable to any language, and the prefix that (IMO) should have been, *-Latn, isn't permitted by RFC4646. It isn't comparable to these cases and so should not be considered precedent setting.


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 10:09 AM
To: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin

On 7 Sep 2008, at 18:04, John Cowan wrote:

Michael Everson scripsit:

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.

If you believe that precedent is controlling, you should approve
the form with "Prefix: zh".  That permits the use of the 'Latn'
subtag, but remains silent about whether its use is recommended.

fonipa has no prefix, and pinyin phonetic orthography can be applied to other languages.

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/20080907/3a5c03fb/attachment-0001.htm