Unifon script?

Doug Ewell doug at ewellic.org
Mon Sep 23 20:11:37 CEST 2013

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

>> The code element is Latn.
> I'm sorry that I'm confused; is Michael saying that [en-Latn],
> [hup-Latn], etc. should be listed in the prefix fields for the variant
> [unifon]?

He was responding concretely to my abstract point that script subtags
cannot be added directly by user request to the Language Subtag Registry
(they can only be added if an ISO 15924 code element is added first).
Michael's response was that no ISO 15924 code element needs to be added
for Unifon, because it is a Latin variant.

> ([unifon] is  similar I would guess, and as you all have said, to
> [fonipa]; I'm not sure what Doug is saying but more prefix fields can
> be added later;  prefixes can also be removed later I understand, so
> long as you remove them all; also, for example, if you have registered
> a prefix [en-Latn], you can remove [Latn], making the prefix just
> [en]; [fonipa] as we registered it, has no prefix requirements)

This must be about something John Cowan said. The only thing I said
about Prefix fields is where they should be canonically placed within
the record.

Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, USA
http://ewellic.org | @DougEwell ­

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list