Tagging transliterations from a specific script

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Mon Mar 14 20:57:50 CET 2011

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> There's another option you haven't mentioned: register variant subtags that refer to the specific transliteration schemes currently encompassed by the non-specific subtag alalc97 and deprecate alalc97 or at least recommend that the specific subtags be used in general.

That is another option.  One disadvantage might be if languages like
Tatar, where the ALA-LC transliteration differs significantly depending
on the source script, are the exception rather than the rule.  In that
case, a potentially large percentage of "xx-alalc97" tags might be
deprecated for no clear benefit.

> If people really think an extension is needed, I'd like to see a clear business case for creating a new extension: it's not in any way obvious to me that the currently-available mechanism (variant subtags) isn't adequate. Also, if someone is going to pursue that, I think it would be good to do that soon: if there's going to be a different mechanism for handling transliterations, then it would be better not to continue registering variant subtags for transliterations.

I'm just laying out the options and suggesting we choose one of them (or
explicitly do nothing) instead of ignoring the issue.  All of the
options have advantages and disadvantages.  Please feel free to add
additional disadvantages to the extension option, or challenge any of
the listed advantages if you think they are incorrect.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org
RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ is dot gd slash 2kf0s ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list