randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Wed Sep 24 19:11:42 CEST 2008
> From: "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>
> To: "ietflang IETF Languages Discussion" <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 1:58 AM
> Subject: Pinyin
> This is Tongyong Pinyin orthography, also to be defined as Mandarin
> Chinese language.
As long as zh-TW usage or idioms don't diverge from PRC (resulting
in a need to distinguish the language variety per se in addition to
the orthography) this would work, though I really don't like it. If we go
this route, I'd like the registration form to give the reference materials
for Tongyong pinyin and to spell out that it's that, rather than Hanyu
Pinyin, that's intended with these two prefixes. But I'd prefer not
combining one Tibetan and two different Mandarin orthographies
(along with an unspecified number of orthogrphies of other languages?)
into a single language variant.
> All of these can only mean Mandarin Chinese in Tongyong Pinyin
> romanization; they are not yet permitted but will be (one supposes).
> For the present, this set doesn't matter to us.
I have the same concern about potential divergence in zh-TW usage
from PRC usage with these.
> Both of these mean Tibetan language in Tibetan Pinyin romanization (as
> opposed to Wiley for instance).
The registration form should specify references for this orthography as well.
> Peter says he would like the recommended prefix to contain -Latn-.
> Mark said he could live with or without it but thought that "with"
> should be recommended. Should we assist users of this subtag by having
> some redundancy in the registration? At this stage I think that "best
> practice" (with -Latn-) being the only one specified might be
I'd prefer listing *only* the -Latn- prefixes.
Now, a question. Consider bo-Latn-TW-pinyin. Would that be Tibetan
as used in Tiawan in an orthography that looks something like Hanyu Pinyin,
or Tibetan in an orthography that looks something like Tongyong pinyin?
More information about the Ietf-languages