Re: [Ietf-languages] Fwd: Proposal for multiple variant language subtags for Pe̍h-ōe-jī romanizations for Minnan (nan)

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Winston Sung wrote:

> These books were the historical schemes (evolution) for written
> Pe̍h-ōe-jī and indeed each book uses a slightly different
> romanization.

So these subtags would indicate the historical stages in the development of the Pe̍h-ōe-jī romanization. Are there written works in each of these varieties, other than the book which defines them, or would some of these subtags be useful only for one book and for describing the developmental stages themselves?

> After some confirmation, it seems the 1894, 1911, 1934 versions used
> the same romanization scheme.

Then it’s a good thing we didn’t rush to register them all.

You will need to withdraw the registrations for “varieties” that are actually the same. (There was already a need to split out the big registration form, as each of the nine proposed subtags under 'pehoeji' needs its own form.) A variant subtag may identify a language variety that was established or documented in a specific book, but should not exist simply to document the book itself, which would be the case if all nine were registered.

> For use cases, it is likely for the need to write the varieties of
> Pe̍h-ōe-jī in the same page (e.g., for comparison).

In other words, a primary justification for these variants for historical varieties of Pe̍h-ōe-jī would be to talk about the varieties themselves? They would be just labels on a chart similar to the one you sent to this list?

Is there an interoperability need, such that one user or process would tag content in, say, the 1923 version of Pe̍h-ōe-jī, and another user or process would use the tag to locate that content?

Martin Dürst asked (roughly) whether there is content for which these subtags are envisioned, whose meaning or interpretation or readability differs based on the version of Pe̍h-ōe-jī used. I’d like to ask the same question — not just whether one author decided to use this letter or sequence for a given sound, and then, two or four years later, another author chose a different letter or sequence but kept the rest of the orthography the same.

Traditionally, the bar for registering variants in BCP 47 is considered lower than for registering languages in ISO 639 — we don’t, for example, ask for proof of a minimum number of works held in a minimum number of locations, as ISO 639-2 did — but there has to be some expectation of interoperability and broad use.

I await the Reviewer’s opinion.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org