Flavors of Hepburn (was: Re: Ietf-languages Digest, Vol 81, Issue 41)

[Mark Crispin]

On Sun, 27 Sep 2009, Doug Ewell wrote:
> This is one reason I didn't want "ISO 3602" or similar to appear in the 
> Description field.  Anyone familiar with these romanizations should be 
> able to tell what is intended by "Hepburn romanization" or "Kunrei-shiki 
> romanization," and should not be thrown off by additional specificity 
> that might imply only perfectly transcribed text fits the subtag.

In case it wasn't obvious, I agree completely.

Past unpleasant experiences have lead me to believe that specifications 
should say no more, and no less, than the concensus at the time it is 
written.  If something is to be interpreted liberally, it MUST say so; if 
something is to be interpreted strictly, it SHOULD say so.

Don't expect people in the future to know what we intended.  Don't even 
expect them to listen to any of us if we tell them.

> I think it is clear by now that only 'hepburn' and 'heploc' should be 
> registered at this time
> We can always return to Kunrei-shiki 
> and Nihon-shiki in the future, maybe the very near future, but debating 
> them should not further delay registration of Frank's Hepburn subtags.

I agree on this as well.

> As a reminder to Frank and anyone else who wants to tag Hepburn: Use 
> only the subtags that are necessary to convey what you need to convey.

And on this.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to eat for lunch.
Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the vote.