Status of Japanese requests

Michael Everson everson at
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
> subvariants;

They are fine.

> (c) an objection was raised to the Nihon-shiki subtag on the basis  
> that
> "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'  
> and
> '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 *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list