Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at
Sat Sep 5 23:01:01 CEST 2009

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at>
> To: <ietf-languages at>
> Sent: Saturday, September 05, 2009 1:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Revised request: Japanese transliteration variants
> Thus my original question remains: in what way does the Description 
> field "Hepburn romanization" make it unclear whether the subtag refers 
> to a specific variety of Hepburn or for a blanket covering all of them; 
> and to the extent any confusion exists, how critical a tagging problem 
> does this cause?

Your own posts in this thread suggest that it is at least ambiguous between
the romanizations known as "Hepburn" romanizations following the same
principles, whatever those might be.  All I'm suggesting is that if it is to be
a catch-all (of either kind) then we should be explicit.  We have other
examples like this, such as "gem", and I have argued that they do have
a legitimate (if highly limited) use.  But since no one else seems to be
concerned about this, I'll shut up.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list