Full-sentence Description fields
Mark Davis ☕
mark at macchiato.com
Fri Oct 1 22:36:11 CEST 2010
A good point. How about changing each of those to be a comment, and
the Descriptions to be the following?
Optional Abjad vowels included
Jyutping Cantonese Romanization
— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:37, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> Mark Davis <mark at macchiato dot com> wrote:
>> Indicates that the content is an abjad, but that all optional vowel
>> marks are included in the text.
>> Indicates that the content is transcribed according to X-SAMPA
>> Indicates a transcription of content based on a pronunciation
>> respelling, such as "nāshən" for "nation"
> I would very much like to avoid complex, full-sentence Description
> fields like these. Description fields tend to work best when they are
> brief labels.
> Although neither BCP 47 nor the usual English meaning of "description"
> precludes forbids this, all of the existing Description fields in the
> Registry -- whether taken from core standards or registered via this
> list -- are short phrases, such as "Standardized Resian orthography" and
> "ALA-LC Romanization, 1997 edition." This has held true even for
> less-obvious variants that may require detailed explanation for full
> I would prefer recasting the proposed Description fields as Comments
> fields, and truncating the Description fields to something like:
> Abjad with optional vowel marks
> X-SAMPA transcription
> Pronunciation respelling
> Obviously these are only my own preferences. Note that "Jyutping
> romanization of Cantonese" is perfectly fine and an excellent example of
> what I would like to see for the others.
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
> RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages