randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Thu Sep 25 04:26:43 CEST 2008
> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2008 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: Pinyin
> zh-(Latn-)pinyin = Chinese written in a "pinyin" romanization, could be
> Hanyu or Tongyong but definitely not Wade-Giles
There's a clear need to tag some Mandarin material as specifically Hanyu Pinyin.
There's also a clear need to tag some Mandarin material as specifically Wade-Giles.
There's probably a need to tag some Mandarin material as specifically Tongyong Pinyin.
(Has a request for this actually been received, or is it something that just
"appeared" in the course of discussion?)
But what is the use case for wanting to split off Wade-Giles but lump
together Tongyong and Hanyu Pinyin, as well as everything else
I really fail to see the rationale for gathering the various
more-or-less pinyin-like orthographies under a single banner.
It's not like they're so similar that it would be difficult
to distinguish them - as reported earlier here, about 20%
of possible Mandarin syllables are spelled differently using
Tongyong. Nor can I see how it would be useful to treat them
as being somehow "alike." Nor do I think it at all likely that
we'll be seeing many (or any) texts "in the wild" in which the
two are intermingled, other than a text comparing the orthographies.
More information about the Ietf-languages