Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Sat Sep 5 18:31:05 CEST 2009
Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> FWIW, I still think this is the wrong way to go. I could support "any
> romanization known as Hepburn", since developers/users would be highly
> unlikely to get that wrong. I can't support "any romanization that
> follows the general Hepburn model." The discussion of Pinyin made it
> quite clear that "follows the general X model" is a highly subjective
> statement.
OK, let's suppose the subtag as proposed does mean "any romanization
known as Hepburn." How, then, does the Description field "Hepburn
romanization" leave it unclear, in a way that impacts interoperability,
whether the subtag means all flavors of Hepburn or only a specific
flavor?
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list