Unifon script?

[Kent Karlsson]

Is your (apparent) support for this variant subtag to be interpreted
as that you have given up the idea of encoding Unifon as a script
separate from the Latin script? (Cmp.
http://std.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC2/WG2/docs/n4195.pdf.) I mean, if Unifon
is encoded as a separate script, it will have a script subtag, and
there is no need for a variant subtag.

    /Kent K



Den 2013-09-12 19:11, skrev "Michael Everson" <everson at evertype.com>:

> On 12 Sep 2013, at 17:38, "Phillips, Addison" <addison at lab126.com> wrote:
> 
>> That¹s correct: the Œfonuni¹ 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 Œfonuni¹ would be the subtag you proposed instead of Œunifon¹?
> 
> 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.
> 
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages