LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R4): pinyin

[CE Whitehead]

 Hi!I personally support Michael Everson's solution--to create a list of prefixes for the [pinyin] subtag, to treat the [wadegile] Romanization as separate, and that we need a suppress-script for variants.Hope that is not too far from what Mark Davis wanted when he asked for the subtags.  Thanks!  C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com  From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>> Wade-Giles is not Pinyin. It does not derive from Pinyin orthographic> conventions. Tibetan Pinyin and Tongyong Pinyin do, as do other uses> of Latin in romanizations used in China for Sino-Tibetan and other> languages. > It is probable that Wade-Giles conventions were used for languages> other than Mandarin, but the point is that we're looking to approve> both "wadegile" and "pinyin" subtags here. > I'm not convinced that these subtags should be restricted as has been> proposed to zh- or zh-Latn. Evidently there is some programmatic> utility to keeping -Latn following whatever prefix (zh-, bo-) though I> have yet to feel consensus amongst you as to whether zh-pinyin and zh-> Latn-pinyin should both be "allowed". It seems to me that both are> inevitable and that the revision should permit Suppress-script to be> attached to subtags like fonipa/fonupa/pinyin to prevent the> inevitable omission of -Latn-.  Agreed.  > But in any case I do believe that bo-> (Latn-)pinyin is appropriately subtagged by "pinyin" and despite the> fact that the requesters were only requesting Mandarin, there's more> beneath the hood than that. > Either we have no Prefix at all or we list a set of prefixes that we> know at present can be used with the subtag and presumably add more in> future.  I think this is the best solution--if there is general support for it! . . .> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com<http://www.evertype.com/>   From: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org>Subject: Re: LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R3): pinyin > CE Whitehead scripsit: >> I agree with Frank that what is important is somehow>> telling the search engines and such that this is [latn] script. >> Search engines (a) ignore language tags anyhow, and (b) don't need to>> be told what script something is in. Script subtags are mostly for>> non-electronic documents and use in locales and such.  Hi, John:  I think the argument that I was responding to is that the script subtag helps to identify the kind of orthography when the variant subtag is not known.   So I continue to consider the suppress-script field is the best solution!   --C. E. Whiteheadcewcathar at hotmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080910/8c5e7c78/attachment.htm