Martin J. Dürst
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Thu Dec 29 06:37:35 CET 2016
On 2016/12/29 11:27, Doug Ewell wrote:
> 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.
For the form, that's probably the right thing to do. In practice, it may
depend on how important the variants are when compared to the script.
If in general, people (e.g. for searches) care mostly about whether
something is written in Latin or Pahawh Hmong, and the variant is only
icing on the cake, then using tags like mww-Hmng-pahawh2 is advisable,
because such documents will be found with searches for mww-Hmng. If on
the other hand, the variants are what counts (e.g. if there are people
who can read one of the variants but would be baffled by another) then
the script can be easily left out.
> From: Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
> Date: Wed, December 28, 2016 6:20 pm
> 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
> redundant here.
More information about the Ietf-languages