Subject: Re: [Ltru] Extensions in general (was: Re: Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:09:34 -0600

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

>> for example, should ietf-languages deprecate existing variants like
>> 'pinyin' if they become available via -t-? Users are supposed to be
>> able to ignore extensions if they don't understand them or choose not
>> to, but they are not supposed to ignore variants.
>
> This could be an issue -- I can see having a period where
> zh-pinyin-t-zh-hans would be valid and zh-pinyin would also be and
> both would be essentially equivalent, but I am not sure that everyone
> will be happy with this solution.  And I can understand that. Oh well.

That's not the scenario I had in mind, though mixing existing variants 
with -t- subtags would be another interesting complication.  I was 
thinking of "zh-pinyin" versus "zh-Latn-t-zh-Hans-m0-pinyin", which I 
guess would be the new way.

> A few more comments:  I wish that following -t somewhere there could
> be a choice of options, tscrip (transcription), trlit
> (transliteration), or trlat (translation) but I know this is getting
> cumbersome.

Even people on this list can't agree on what is a transcription and what 
is a transliteration.  I strongly doubt requiring users to make this 
distinction would add any value to the tags.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell

---

From: CE Whitehead <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 15:18:59 -0400

From: "Doug Ewell" <doug at ewellic.org>Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:09:34 -0600> That's not the scenario I had in mind, though mixing existing variants with -t- subtags would > be another interesting complication. > I was thinking of "zh-pinyin" versus "zh-Latn-t-zh-> Hans-m0-pinyin", which I guess would be the new way.Hmm thanks for this example.>  . . .> Even people on this list can't agree on what is a transcription and what is a transliteration. I > strongly doubt requiring users to make > this distinction would add any value to the tags.O.k. thanks for your advice (but they can indicate the transformation mechanism, but o.k.; I'm just glad to see the -t reserved for transcriptions, transliterations, translations).Best,--C. E. [email-masked]  > --> Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14> www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell