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

[Phake Nick <[e-mail]>]

If both are registered, doesn't that mean there will be two entries for
"nan-Latn", one refer to POJ romanizarion and another referring to Tai-lo
romanization?
Wouldn't it make more sense for nan-Latn to refer to the whole concept of
romanized writing of Min'nan, and let POJ and Tai-lo be represented by
subtags like nan-Latn-poj/nan-Latn-tailo? (This is just an example, doesn't
mean I am proposing these subtags for the transcriptions.)

According to my understanding, there are people in Taiwan and beyond that
write the language using latin script through these orthographies instead
of merely using them as transcription, as they have done on wikipedia of
the language, so I think it is probably good to have them as a subtag of
itself, but then is it necessary for POJ/Tai-lo to have different subtags
given I heard that there's only like one or so difference between the two
orthography?

在 2024年1月29日週一 07:39，Doug Ewell <[e-mail]> 寫道：

> Winston Sung wrote:
>
> > Update:
> >
> > Description: Pe̍h-ōe-jī orthography / romanization
> > Comments: The subtag represents Pe̍h-ōe-jī orthography / romanization
> > for Minnan.
>
> The Comments field doesn’t add any information beyond the Description (the
> proposed Prefix is "nan-Latn", i.e. Min Nan Chinese in Latin script), and
> hence I suggest removing it. The same was true for the original proposal
> for this subtag.
>
> The corresponding Comments field for the 'tailo' proposal does add some
> information (“in 2006 by Ministry of Education”), so it makes sense to keep
> that. But it should probably say “created” or “approved” or “promulgated”
> in 2006, whichever is appropriate, and it should specify *what* Ministry of
> Education is involved (presumably Taiwan’s).
>
> Note also that the Description for 'nan' in the Registry (after ISO 639-3)
> is “Min Nan Chinese,” and so adding a comment to the Registry that spells
> this “Minnan” is perhaps not ideal anyway.
>
> I can create and post complete, revised registration forms for these two
> proposals, along with the proposed records which we need anyway (although
> this doesn’t seem to be stated explicitly in Section 3.5). But I still
> would like to hear from the Reviewer and others about registering variants
> like this. What distinguishes romanizations that get variant subtags from
> those that have to settle for CLDR encoding via Extension T? How do we
> quantify that, say, Pe̍h-ōe-jī is an “orthography” for everyday use while
> “mns” for Mongolian is not? Is there another criterion?
>
> --
> Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>