Japanese transliteration: ja-Latn-hepburn

CE Whitehead cewcathar at hotmail.com
Wed Sep 9 01:00:52 CEST 2009



I still think that [pinyin] and [wadegile] can serve as precedents for how we treat [hepburn] !  But I'm not sure I see a consensus on this point.


Mark wrote:

"I think all we really need is hepburn at this point. Like everything, there will be subvariants, but until and unless people have a need for them, we should focus on the principal requirement."


Doug wrote:
"As long as 'hepburn' is still available to mean "any variety of Hepburn," and the additional subtags would have a Prefix of 
"ja-Latn-hepburn", I am fine with that."

Michael Everson wrote: 

"On 6 Sep 2009, at 01:31, Frank Bennett wrote:

"> If it will serve the cause, I'll be happy to make two further filings,
> based on the transliteration rules of two variants of Hepburn that are
> well-defined and available on the Net -- the system from J.C.
> Hepburn's 1886 dictionary, and the system used by the Library of
> Congress.  For my own immediate purposes this level of specificity
> won't be needed, but having subvariants in place from the start would
> make it very clear that further ones can be registered, and that
> greater precsion is possible where it is required.
"> It's really not much trouble.  Shall I go ahead and prepare those
> additional submissions?

"Yes, please do. If it's easy, let's be complete now and be done with  it. The LoC system is certainly not trivial in terms of usage."

I could not see a consensus here, but like I said, was hoping that we could follow the path we took when dealing with the Chinese variants and thus reach a consensus.




C. E. Whitehead

cewcathar at hotmail.com 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20090908/a538cad8/attachment.htm 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list