Tagging transliterations from a specific script

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Thu Mar 17 15:56:14 CET 2011

Michael Everson <everson at evertype dot com> wrote:

>> This latter scenario is very much a special case, and
>> on no account does it justify overhauling BCP 47 to make the order of
>> subtags flexible and their meaning dependent on their relative order.
> Then why not revise it to add some sort of generic transliteration
> subtag that could handle source/target transliterations dynamically?
> Isn't such extensibility part of the rationale of this scheme?

Extensibility is very much a part of BCP 47.  The way to extend it,
though, is by creating an extension, as per Section 3.7 of RFC 5646,
just as Addison suggested back on February 14.  The way to extend it is
not by rechartering the LTRU WG and spending another three to five years
revising the core spec and haggling over minute, unrelated details and
rehashing old decisions and fending off trolls.

I'm still not convinced that this "transliterated from script X"
scenario is so common, or ever going to be so common, that we need to
worry about generalizing the solution.  I don't even know that we have
one need for it, now that Avram has more clearly defined his
requirements for Tatar.  But if we do think the solution needs to be
generalized, an extension is the way to do it.

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