addison at lab126.com
Wed Oct 2 21:38:33 CEST 2013
I don't think it would be worth it solely to add another informative field to the registry.
Note that we have a Comments field that can be used for prose commentary guiding subtag usage. Although subtags are processed by machines, their choice is almost always made by humans. It's very helpful when the informative information about when to user or omit a given subtag is machine readable but it is not required in all cases.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2013 11:43 AM
> To: ietf-languages at iana.org
> Subject: Re: Unifon script?
> Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:
> >> Peter, would you propose having a mechanism that strongly encourages
> >> users of 'fonipa' and 'fonupa' and 'fonxsamp' to include the 'Latn'
> >> script subtag as well? (Prefixes can only "strongly encourage"; they
> >> can't enforce.)
> > On the contrary, I was suggesting that if LSTR included fields to tell
> > us that a tag that has 'fonipa' or 'fonupa' implies Latin script (a
> > bit like the suppress-script field in terms of its semantic
> > implications, but for variants), then I think that would be helpful.
> I understand now. This would entail a new field type in the Registry, which
> would require resurrecting the LTRU WG so that RFC 5646 could be revised. We
> would have to decide if that effort would be worth it.
> The new field type would apply to phonetic alphabets and transcription systems
> like 'fonipa' and 'fonxsamp', orthographic reforms or choices like 'bohoric' and
> 'baku1926', as well as romanizations like 'wadegile'
> and 'jyutping' (such that the former could have its Prefix expanded from "zh-
> Latn" to "zh"). But it would not apply to variants that have no relation to
> orthography or script, such as 'aluku' and 'jauer' and 'valencia'.
> > If I see "en-fonipa", then the 'en' subtag has the suppress-script
> > field that tells me that 'Latn' can be assumed. But if I see
> > "huy-fonipa", nothing in the LSTR tells me that. Yet that would be an
> > equally appropriate assumption.
> Actually, you can't assume 'Latn' from "en-fonipa" either.
> Suppress-Script identifies the *default* script for the language when written
> normally, but the presence of a variant for a phonetic alphabet completely
> overrides this default. You certainly could not assume anything of this sort from,
> say, "ru-fonipa" or "ko-fonipa".
> Similarly, the fact that Unifon is attested for languages whose normal, default
> writing system is (or may be) Latin has no bearing on whether Unifon itself is
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
> http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages