Variant subtag proposal: ALA-LC romanization of Russian

[John Cowan]

Doug Ewell scripsit:

> Are we absolutely sure we want to limit the scope of this variant to 
> only the 1997 edition?

Yes, absolutely.  The 1997 edition in hard-copy form is a standard for
bibliographic transcription all over the world.

> The proposed subtag requires users to be aware of the exact date of
> release of the table; I don't know if prospective users of this subtag
> typically would be.

The question is rather "Are they using the book, or something else?"  If the
book, use the tag.  If something that's not in the book, don't.

> In addition, subsequently added subtags for 'alalc00', 'alalc05', etc. 
> will not be retrieved when searching for a tag containing 'alalc97'. 

I think we should be slow to register new tags until and unless ALA/LC
issue a new book -- not necessarily in hard copy, but a definite edition
not subject to being obsoleted by parts.

> This may be by design, of course, but are the differences between 
> revisions really expected to be so great that their subtags should be as 
> different as 'scouse' and 'boont'?  

Oh yes.  Alalc97 romanization for Chinese is modified Wade-Giles,
whereas the current ALA/LC standard is modified Pinyin (no tone marks,
and slightly different rules for dividing words, which is the really
hard part of romanizing Chinese). IIUC, stability is more important
than minor changes for correctness, so when they change something,
it's usually a major change.

-- 
John Cowan   http://ccil.org/~cowan   cowan at ccil.org
'My young friend, if you do not now, immediately and instantly, pull
as hard as ever you can, it is my opinion that your acquaintance in the
large-pattern leather ulster' (and by this he meant the Crocodile) 'will
jerk you into yonder limpid stream before you can say Jack Robinson.'
        --the Bi-Coloured-Python-Rock-Snake