Korean romanizations (Was: Japanese transliteration: ja-Latn-hepburn)
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Sat Sep 12 02:34:35 CEST 2009
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 03:58, Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14 at comhem.se>wrote:
> Den 2009-09-11 05.04, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>:
> > Geez, all I had in mind for Korean was registering the three most common
> > romanizations, which anyone familiar with Korean could name off the top
> > of their head.
> I would suggest that you just submit the appropriate registration forms
> to the list. I don't think there is the requirement that the submitter
> promises to "start using the subtag for the submitter's immediate needs",
> nor that the submitter has been using the variants for which subtags are
> requested. I think the subtags you allude to here are useful enough to be
No, but what I'm afraid of is that then someone else will say, well, we
might as well do Thai romanizations, and then Lao, and then Russian, and
then... There is a pretty unending supply of these things.
1. "Are useful enough to be registered"
2. "Are useful enough to be registered, and someone has a need for it"
I'm just saying that as a working process, #2 gets people what they need,
and is manageable by this group. #1 would completely swamp this group.
> /kent k
> This is in contrast to trying to register a subtag for a lone pronunciation
> quirk (by itself that hardly makes a dialect) or for using old road/highway
> names/numbers instead of their newer names/numbers (totally irrelevant for
> language tagging, methinks).
Hardly makes a dialect? If you are referring to the example I gave, of
en-US-socapgfr, it is probably spoken by as many or more people than speak
your native language...
Of course, I was using an extreme example, but it was to make a point. For
*somebody* that level of precision might be important, just as for
*somebody* the distinction between sl-rozaj-biske and sl-rozaj-njiva, or
between sl-rozaj-biske and sl-rozaj-biske-1994 is important. We can't
anticipate all the possible differences that people might need, nor can or
should we try to second guess that in advance, but what we can do is make
sure that the right tags are at the right levels of breadth when we do get
And transliterations are notoriously tricky. What we actually use in CLDR
for Korean, for example, is a "Korean Ministry of Culture & Tourism
Transliteration with Clause 8 And Further Modifications for Reversibility
Because the Source is Underspecified". (
[Just noticed that we need to fix the links; the Ministry keeps moving the
pages around -- sigh.]
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages