Re: [Ietf-languages] language variant subtag "pinyin" modification request

The Unicode locale identifiers support a legacy syntax as well as proper
BCP 47 syntax. There is a defined subset of the Unicode locale identifiers
called *Unicode BCP 47 locale identifiers*, which are all well-formed BCP
47 language tags. That is the target syntax that any new implementation
should use.

The data files on the CLDR site use the legacy syntax for backwards
compatibility. However, the transform to BCP 47 syntax is simple, and
defined in
http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/#Unicode_Locale_Identifier_CLDR_to_BCP_47,
so it is quite straightforward for implementations to read the CLDR data
and just use the BCP47 syntax.

We should probably make that clear in the chart documentation.

Mark

On Sat, Nov 24, 2018 at 9:07 PM Hugh Paterson <hugh_paterson@sil.org> wrote:

> @Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
>
> I'm interested in some clarification on the statement below:
>
> > It also suggests using invalid tags in the Japan section, where it makes
> the bizarre statement that "BCP 47 makes no difference between '-' and
> '_'". Be careful when citing this project.
>
> I'm wondering if the source of confusion at the OSM project might be CLDR.
> I notice that the documentation at CLDR for suggested tags includes
> underscores. See the documentation at [1].
>
> For my own understanding, am I correct to understand that CLDR tags are
> not BCP47 tags? or put another way what is the relationship between CLDR
> tags (approved ones) and BCP47 tags (approved ones).
>
> [1]:
> http://www.unicode.org/cldr/charts/latest/supplemental/likely_subtags.html
>
> all the best,
>

> [snip]
>
> --
> *Hugh Paterson III *Innovation Analyst
> *Innovation Development & Experimentation*, *SIL International*
>
> *Web*: Contact & CV <http://hughandbecky.us/Hugh-CV/>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>