CE Whitehead cewcathar at
Sun Sep 7 22:13:35 CEST 2008

Hi, regarding fonipa and fonupa, I do not recall (correct me if I am wrong) any prefix's being specified for either subtag.  Maybe that's why [Latn] is not part of the prefix??

To answer John's question, I prefer the tag [zh-Latn-pinyin], as I've said, so that browsers and search engines that do not recognize [pinyin] will have [Latn] to help them.

I'm sorry about the asymmetricity in the registry and I also support Frank's call for a suppress-script for variants-- that would take care of the [fonipa] [fonupa] problem; however I wonder, with the various fonipa symbols for the sound in 'theta' which is from Greek, whether a suppress-script for [fonipa] is a good idea??

So send these with the prefix [zh-Latn], that's my vote.


--C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar at

From: Michael Everson 
> On 4 Sep 2008, at 18:56, John Cowan wrote:

>> If you approve these subtags, the tags "zh-pinyin" and "zh-Latn-
>> pinyin"
>> (and so for "wadegile") will both be permitted, and both will have the
>> same semantics, though the consequences may be different in the many
>> systems that implement naive fallback.
>> The issue is what this list (and so IANA) chooses to recommend. Do we
>> recommend that "zh-Latn-pinyin" be used rather than "zh-pinyin", or
>> do we remain silent on the point? (There is no way to recommend that
>> "zh-pinyin" be used rather than "zh-Latn-pinyin", except for the
>> general
>> "tag wisely and briefly" recommendation.

>I think we need to have people *be able* to do the following (as this
> is what people have said they want to do):

> zh-pinyin
> zh-Latn-pinyin
> zh-fonipa
> zh-Latn-fonipa

> Now for the latter, we have a registration:

> %%
> Type: variant
> Subtag: fonipa
> Description: International Phonetic Alphabet
> Added: 2006-12-11
> %%
> and, evidently, they can do both

> zh-fonipa
> zh-Latn-fonipa

> already. So, what helps us move forward here?

> Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list