Unifon script?

[DataPacRat]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:11 PM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com> wrote:
> On 12 Sep 2013, at 17:38, "Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126.com> wrote:

>> That’s correct: the ‘fonuni’ subtag, if approved, could be used to validly form any language tag, including both fewer (en-unifon) and more (en-Latn-NZ-unifon) subtags that matched the Prefix field(s) in the registry, as well as other well-formed (but non-sensical) tags (tlh-Cyrl-AQ-unifon).
>>
>> Any reason why ‘fonuni’ would be the subtag you proposed instead of ‘unifon’?

> Well, just because we have other phonetic subtags: fonipa, fonupa, fonxsamp
>
> I guess there'd be no particular reason to insist on fonuni rather than unifon.

I will admit at least a minor preference for 'unifon' over 'fonuni',
for sheer legibility if nothing else; but not enough to kick up a big
fuss over.

I will mention that anyone searching the registry for phonetic scripts
by looking for the text string 'fon' would still be able to find
'unifon'; and as long as the description includes 'phonetic', they'd
be able to find it that way, as well.



Thank you for your time,
--
DataPacRat
"Then again, I could be wrong."