Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests)

Phillips, Addison addison at amazon.com
Tue Oct 6 05:58:51 CEST 2009

An announcement is called for by the RFC of a decision by the Subtag Reviewer. In fact, it is absolutely required. If subtags have been submitted, this list should know about it. There should be no mystery involved, because that disadvantages the appeals process, if nothing else.

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Monday, October 05, 2009 8:51 PM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests)
> CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:
> >> 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??
> The Hepburn-related subtags have completed their two-week review
> period,
> have been submitted to IANA, and have been added to the Registry.
> See
> http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry .
> New registration forms can be submitted to this list if it is felt
> that
> users, upon finding one subtag for "Hepburn romanization" and
> another
> for "Hepburn romanization, Library of Congress method," the second
> of
> which takes the first as part of its Prefix, will still be
> incapable of
> understanding that the first is intended to be general.
> > 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!
> There were a few arguments against registering 'kunrei' at present,
> among which were that nobody had asked for it except to tile the
> plane,
> and that the differences between Kunrei-shiki and Nihon-shiki were
> not
> being treated consistently with the differences between flavors of
> Kunrei-shiki.  But I don't remember anyone doubting that "ja-Latn"
> would
> be the appropriate Prefix for Kunrei-shiki.  And even if this were
> in
> question, it isn't a foregone conclusion that determination of a
> "better" Prefix would result in the subtag being deprecated.
> --
> Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |  http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s ­
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list