kent.karlsson14 at telia.com
Thu Oct 3 15:51:23 CEST 2013
Den 2013-10-02 20:42, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>:
> Actually, you can't assume 'Latn' from "en-fonipa" either.
> 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".
While I'm sure that is formally correct, I see (in the registry)
Description: Hepburn romanization, Library of Congress method
Comments: Preferred tag is ja-Latn-alalc97
The recommendation in that comment seems to imply that one should
include a script subtag in the kinds of situations now under discussion
(variant has different script than supress-script for the language or
there is no supress-script for the language). Otherwise "ja-alalc97"
would have been the recommended tag. Note that the entry for alalc97
has no prefix field.
Thus it may be better to use "ru-Latn-fonipa", "ko-Latn-fonipa" rather
than just "ru-fonipa" or "ko-fonipa" (even though the latter are of
course formally correct language tags).
Maybe I'm reading too much into that comment, but it does not seem too
farfetched, as well as being apparent prior art...
More information about the Ietf-languages