Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests and was: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 81, Issue 41)

[CE Whitehead]

Hi
Mark Crispin mrc+ietf at Panda.COM 
Sun Sep 27 21:45:34 CEST 2009 
 
> Yes. I contend that "any romanization of Japanese that fits the Hepburn model better than 
>it fits other models" is a good definition, is reasonably concise, and ought to be used in 
>the registration. 
 This definition sounds fine, but Doug said not for the description field--in the comments maybe?? 
 
 
 
>>From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org
>> Sent: Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:16 AM 
>>  I would be surprised if anyone familiar with romanizations of Japanese, 
>> or any other Asian language, would expect a variant subtag referring to 
>> a particular romanization to apply only if the rules are followed 
>> precisely. That would be like saying that "en-US" can apply only to 
>> "proper" American English as described in an authoritative, 
>> prescriptivist dictionary and not to any regional varieties, nor to 
>> non-standard grammar or spelling (such as "alright" :). 
>> This is one reason I didn't want "ISO 3602" or similar to appear in the 
>> Description field. Anyone familiar with these romanizations should be 
>> able to tell what is intended by "Hepburn romanization" or "Kunrei-shiki
 >> romanization," and should not be thrown off by additional specificity 
>> that might imply o . . .
 
I don't think it's completely clear that [kunrei] should not be registered as it is  well enough defined--I agree with Randy that we don't need to build a perfect tree here --that would be impossible; if we saw at a later date that the [kunrei] subtag should have as its prefix some other subtag in addition  [ja-Latn] we would need to deprecate [kunrei] though which would be a shame as it's a convenient name so I'm willing to wait to register [kunrei]-- but I'm also willing to wager that the prefix [ja-Latn] is what [kunrei] will ultimately get!
 
--C. E. Whitehead
cewcathar at hotmail.com
>> I think it is clear by now that only 'hepburn' and 'heploc' should be 
>> registered at this time, because some participants (not all) feel we 
>> should only register subtags for which there is a clear and present 
>> user-expressed need, and because Mark has expressed this concern over 
>> the continuum of romanizations. We can always return to Kunrei-shiki 
>> and Nihon-shiki in the future, maybe the very near future, but debating 
>> them should not further delay registration of Frank's Hepburn subtags. 
 
  		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20091005/20bf7868/attachment-0001.htm