Peter Constable petercon at
Thu Sep 25 17:35:49 CEST 2008

From: ietf-languages-bounces at [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn

>> I'm happy to exclude Tongyong now, and just leave the 'pinyin'
>> subtag to cover the various PRC romanizations based on Hanyu
>> Pinyin principles.

> And the use case for lumping these together as a single variant
> is.... ???

Here's my take from what I've heard: There *isn't* a use case to lump these together, but rather that the motivation is (a) that, if we have a subtag "pinyin", then there will be users that use that for various PRC romanizations whether we define it as being for that or not; and (b) that people are thinking there are probably needs to tag content in those other romanizations, so we may as well kill two (or three...) birds with one stone.

Our options:

A. Register "pinyin" with a broader scope, and everything gets tagged the same undifferentiated way wrt written variation.

B. Register "pinyin" with a broader scope, and register one or more variants to support differentiating the various orthographies.

C. Register "pinyin" with a narrow scope -- Hanyu Pinyin only -- and expect implementers to actually read and observe what the registry has to say about the subtag.

D. Register "hpinyin" (or some other subtag) to mean specifically Hanyu Pinyin; others may register subtags for other Romanizations if they wish.

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list