IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Pinyin

"David Starner" <prosfilaes@gmail.com> Wed, 24 September 2008 17:49 UTC

Return-Path: <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49B4F39E674 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:49:03 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at eikenes.alvestrand.no
Received: from eikenes.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (eikenes.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MrsasuJzm6Yw for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:49:02 +0200 (CEST)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.6.8
Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [208.77.188.36]) by eikenes.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A2CB39E46F for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 19:49:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com (rv-out-0708.google.com [209.85.198.249]) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8OHnB6X032284 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:49:31 -0700
Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id c5so15956rvf.28 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:49:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.168.2 with SMTP id v2mr3632592rvo.55.1222278134403; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.141.37.2 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <6d99d1fd0809241042g44eba0e8q613989437a958ee@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 13:42:14 -0400
From: David Starner <prosfilaes@gmail.com>
To: ietf-languages@iana.org
Subject: Re: Pinyin
In-Reply-To: <20080924172101.GU19886@mercury.ccil.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <83C5E5CB-FE27-47BA-A98F-F5003F586A64@evertype.com> <006e01c91e68$9e4abce0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <20080924172101.GU19886@mercury.ccil.org>
X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.93.3/8324/Wed Sep 24 03:55:43 2008 on pechora1.lax.icann.org
X-Virus-Status: Clean
X-Greylist: Delayed for 30:48:11 by milter-greylist-4.0 (pechora1.lax.icann.org [208.77.188.36]); Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:49:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF Language tag discussions <ietf-languages.alvestrand.no>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@alvestrand.no?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 17:49:03 -0000

On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 1:21 PM, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
> Randy Presuhn scripsit:
>
>> Now, a question.  Consider bo-Latn-TW-pinyin.  Would that be  Tibetan
>> as used in Tiawan in an orthography that looks something like Hanyu Pinyin,
>> or Tibetan in an orthography that looks something like Tongyong pinyin?
>
> Who cares?  It is complete bollocks in either case, as much so as nv-DK or tlh-AQ.

km-US and tr-DE make sense; even if bo-TW doesn't exist today, it
doesn't seem that unlikely a combination to appear in the future.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email