Re: Subtag registration: Russian transliteration of Chinese

und-Latn-t-ru, or even und-Latn-t-und-Cyrl. That would be for a target
script (Latn in this example), not knowing the target language (thus a
"generic" transcription/transliteration rather than a (target) language
specific one).

/Kent Karlsson

Den 2015-10-14 20:15, skrev "Avram Lyon" <ajlyon@gmail.com>:

> So Extension T can arguably be applied for transformations that have a target
> language -- but does it apply when there is solely a target script, such as
> ISO 9 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_9), which certainly should not be
> en-t-ru when used with Russian-- because the target is a script, not a
> language. Indeed, the exact same ISO 9 romanization could be classed de-t-ru
> or en-t-ru or fr-t-ru, even though nothing about the content changed.
> 
> Other cases in the same vein arise with even ALA-LC romanization (alalc97),
> which is frequently used even when there is no English or other Latin-language
> context, such as a fully romanized set of entries in a card catalog.
> 
> Am I missing something about the way that Extension T interacts with the
> existing variant subtags?
> 
> Avram
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages 