Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants

Doug Ewell doug at
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 

Doug Ewell  |  Thornton, Colorado, USA  |
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14  |  ietf-languages @ 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list