Korean romanizations (Was: Japanese transliteration: ja-Latn-hepburn)

Randy Presuhn randy_presuhn at mindspring.com
Thu Sep 10 08:17:48 CEST 2009

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>
> To: <ietf-languages at iana.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 9:28 PM
> Subject: Re: Japanese transliteration: ja-Latn-hepburn
> I wonder if we ought to be talking now about registering variants for 
> Korean romanizations, while we are thinking about these issues, so we 
> don't end up having to invent our guidelines all over again.  There is 
> Revised Romanization, McCune-Reischauer, and Yale, plus a few others in 
> much less common use.

Let's wait until someone identifies a need and files a request.   Korean
romanization (not even worrying about cyrillization) appears to be just
as messy a situation as we've seen with Japanese.  Registrations should
be driven by actual user needs, not the universe of theoretical possibilities,
particularly for something with as many sub-varieties as some of these
appear to have.  I'm particularly concerned about the possibility of
undesirable results from following a "guideline" from what happens
to work for one family of Japanese Romanzations.  The decision to
register a broad or narrow definition of a particular variant should be
based on the registrant's needs, not some "guideline" that this group
has derived from the situation of an orthographic variant of some
other language.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list