doug at ewellic.org
Thu Dec 29 03:27:12 CET 2016
In that case, I recommend leaving the script subtag out of the Prefix,
so users aren't led to believe (rightly or wrongly) they need to include
this redundant subtag just to be compliant.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Hmong orthographies
From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
Date: Wed, December 28, 2016 6:20 pm
To: Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org>
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
On 28 Dec 2016, at 21:56, Doug Ewell <doug at ewellic.org> wrote:
> Michael Everson wrote:
>> Both of these are in current use. Both use Pahawh Hmong script. A Latin orthography for Hmong is also widely used. Should these requests specify the script? It’s ISO 15924 Hmng.
> Only if you want usage without the script subtag (like "mww-pahawh2") to be considered less "suitable" or "appropriate" than "mww-Hmng-pahawh2” (Section 2.2.5).
OK, put it this way. There is no instance of pahawh2 that uses a script
OTHER than Hmng. What tagging should be recommended? Hmng is essentially
More information about the Ietf-languages