Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants
doug at ewellic.org
Thu Sep 3 15:25:49 CEST 2009
Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> If the intent is that the variant subtag's meaning would be "any of
> the romanizations known as Hepburn" then, regardless whether the other
> subtags are registered, I'd like the description to make that clear.
> Just omitting the "modified" or "revised" qualifier doesn't really
> accomplish that - something more explicit would be helpful.
We registered 'pinyin' last year with the relatively general Description
field "Pinyin romanization" under the premise that it could be used for
Hanyu Pinyin, Tongyong Pinyin, or Tibetan Pinyin (a decision which I
know you and others opposed, but it was upheld by the Reviewer). The
intent was not "any romanization known as 'pinyin'," but rather "any
romanization that follows the general Pinyin model," thus including
Tongyong and Tibetan but excluding Wade-Giles.
I don't see why this strategy would not work for Hepburn as well, or why
doing something different would achieve anything but inconsistency. The
subtag 'hepburn' as proposed doesn't strictly mean "any romanization
known as Hepburn," but rather "any romanization that follows the general
Hepburn model," thus including the three varieties of Hepburn we have
discussed but excluding Kunrei-shiki and Nihon-shiki.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages