Status of Japanese requests
everson at evertype.com
Fri Sep 25 15:55:45 CEST 2009
On 25 Sep 2009, at 14:16, Doug Ewell wrote:
> (b) nobody has objected to the two subtags for Hepburn and its LOC
They are fine.
> (c) an objection was raised to the Nihon-shiki subtag on the basis
> "ISO 3602 Strict" is not formally defined anywhere;
I would prefer it if this would not scupper it.
> (d) nobody has come forth with alternative wording and references for
> that subtag (I would have thought "Nihon-shiki romanization" would
> be an
> adequate Description, but we do also need a reference);
I'm afraid I do not have a reference.
> My assumption right now is that we are going forward with 'hepburn'
> 'heploc' and not currently going forward with 'nihon'.
I would like Frank to comment on this.
> What about 'kunrei'? That subtag references "ISO 3602" in the
> Description (though
> again I don't think that is strictly necessary; it could be in a
> Comments field instead), and nobody has disputed that ISO 3602 does
> provide a definition of Kunrei-shiki. But it could easily be argued
> that the requester only asked for Hepburn subtags, that there is no
> demonstrated need for the other two, and that adding 'kunrei' without
> 'nihon' would be bizarre.
I agree with this last point.
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
More information about the Ietf-languages