Mark Davis ☕ mark at
Fri Oct 1 19:24:51 CEST 2010


— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:06, Michael Everson <everson at> wrote:
> I don't have much time to devote to this right now. I am in Bangkok today and tomorrow, and will be in Busan for WG2 all next week. I will not be back in Ireland till the morning of 11 October.
> "fonxsamp" and "jyutping" are fine
> "vowels" is, well, not so nice. Arabic texts are said to be vocalized when they use diacritics and Hebrew pointed. There is also the question of how this relates to Thaana and Tengwar.

The exact term doesn't matter, if you prefer "vocalizd" or "pointed".
However, it would be useful to have a single common term rather than
different terms for the same concept. This is like the fact that we
have a single subtag for Germany (DE), even though the names for that
vary across languages: we don't have "GE", "AL", etc.

> "respell" is very much not so nice. It is so vague as to be meaningless. All it means is "non-standard spelling" as far as I can see. We've not encoded
> I would rather see fonberlz and fonamher and fonwebst and fon-whatever defined by specific references to actual identifiable entities. That would be meaningful and for instance could be used to facilitate machine transformation from e.g. fonberlz to fonxsamp or fonipa.

The intent is that where that is necessary, that this be the "root" of
all such terms. That allows content to be tagged where the precise
mechanism is not known or not relevant.

This is similar to the general principle that we use elsewhere. We
have the term "sr" for "Serbian" even though the precise kind of
Serbian used in the content may vary quite substantially; it could
have even a different script; and could have substantially different
spelling conventions based on the dialect in question.

> Michael Everson *
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list