Kent Karlsson kent.karlsson14 at
Wed Sep 10 09:57:54 CEST 2008

Doug Ewell wrote:
> Sorry for the confusion.  I wasn't referring to the subtag value 
> either -- if I were, I wouldn't have uppercased it.  I was 
> talking about 
> the concept of "Pinyin" itself.  And it now seems that we 
> have at least three interpretations of that word:
> 1. Hanyu Pinyin only (exemplified by Mark)
> 2. Hanyu Pinyin and other romanizations that "derive from Pinyin 
> orthographic conventions" (Michael)
> 3. Any romanization of a Chinese language (Kent)

While I have nothing against registering a subtag for Hanyu Pinyin,
I think choosing the name "pinyin" for that subtag may be a bad idea,
and potentially confusing no matter how clear the registration form
is regarding that this is to be used for Hanyu Pinyin only.

And as I noted before, I find it a bit strange that for "acad"
there is a "move" to micromanagement by introducing year numbers
for (apparently) rather small differences, while here there is
a "move" to include fairly different orthographies [that "derive
from [Hanyu] Pinyin orthographic conventions"] into one subtag.

	/kent k

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list