IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ietf-languages] Language tag for Han pinyin

Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com> Tue, 31 May 2022 17:55 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867F4C15AAED for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:55:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.396
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.396 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=macchiato-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4UjcBlrwZvEv for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 20C55C15AAE2 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id w27so11886474edl.7 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:54:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=macchiato-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=teqvkj88ElouywS0Hrsg2InIjLXu7/ks13lcTRHJte4=; b=6MOc55ePRpD8QUzu9h303wIBa3tEwvNH+y8/+OcEdXldaumyNQO0kxzr3Hgp0wZ2Qr shwUmxf47/jtI3ecAxOPeCiK8GXy56/bQ6LCAbKhRLFy6yi3gEiZNEgnQvhBwHckBbgn YL8Ovq5mujPO5ImXOS0bvb7tcSVInPn3Ohv5bH7IjPXbkUdEX2nzJhoEFNCzS05K83ES Abilemx0Mqarw/gwnmxTZJXenZhg5WD5XVY1xyoCDwKaqi1qRY/qX3/SLBBfupZgpNzG +WVj4MfTxQhRq9mutNvZ81MCdA9aw5TrPaEr5+2Qq4rB6WRgjUALsFqaH9oZ5y6FrjL/ ZqxA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=teqvkj88ElouywS0Hrsg2InIjLXu7/ks13lcTRHJte4=; b=8HZm53xWOXZ0ka8RE9K5yLXkl8Xfu/fAm9y+CZNpWaVrJpRJcpAYSox0ARl20nVcLq 1dkQxWmhAfxpIDm6l4hQVoFIvgQlb4i83GgcW1F+VtURakA69GYIRAnyv+fOLaSRT2lw 4sFnjfjp0hmSqCUgxOnfdOiodoAnHD2c2qwhOALfIU9OmAJ5wXFrhTZXc9eAxyKjGbma AWbvI/ixLKgh37dS1+Hl1eyjqlU5ICLiUEE77dub5CMjFbl2G8PhLZRDq8pMH9qX/2KD SGDjJd2ZpXd/z3T9z2nBhNlJy2NRuD2CzIbJZ++VfZqMx9nrToz9cwJ5lu2Sa7JeNneY k9MQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531JQGgulRGnl2tQGhsPtuwP1dC15bvhwrFnVYMkrx3z1uk4f6jp nX+2NhjX1xZR0WlknJ0IA1QLnrZaa2Bq2wVxCcEZUcNL
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw4T9YmNgcUgUClMy/R09Lo/VrO8uaotxoWq5yUCCy3CvxzCA+sORYjUFus7GTL+EfT6pSE2TGIpcajFqNIopw=
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:cad4:0:b0:428:715f:5ce4 with SMTP id l20-20020aa7cad4000000b00428715f5ce4mr67566469edt.124.1654019696584; Tue, 31 May 2022 10:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220527232636.3a045ad5@JRWUBU2> <CAD2gp_TL60_pPhQBVDY_Y6gf6qWwAFAy4vWXr+9Pz7dOQcZu6g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ2xs_FADCdU4htmQ+A_tGXaeuEBHPGhKWePNO+aDkzBOF7NhA@mail.gmail.com> <20220529020131.23c43c8a@JRWUBU2>
In-Reply-To: <20220529020131.23c43c8a@JRWUBU2>
From: Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 10:54:45 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_GqaPjbSU1A0f9NZXX+f47ofasenPsJTY95LPy0XRqm8w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham=40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: ">" <ietf-languages@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000776bf105e052781f"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/YcdfORnUJdj1iRZr_RYN06slNQs>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Language tag for Han pinyin
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Review of requests for language tag registration according to BCP 47 \(RFC 4646\)" <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2022 17:55:02 -0000

1. -pinyin is worth specifying (in addition to zh-Latn) because there are
other possible (though much less frequent) Latin orthographies
2. -Latn is worth specifying because if the -pinyin is ignored, you would
still get a Latn orthography (and not Han) if available — and it is likely
to be pinyin
3. zh is worth specifying because it is recognized by many implementations
that wouldn't recognize cmn

Mark


On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 6:01 PM Richard Wordingham <richard.wordingham=
40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:

> On Fri, 27 May 2022 19:01:14 -0700
> Mark Davis ☕️ <mark@macchiato.com> wrote:
>
> > It is safer to use zh-Latn-pinyin, because a lot of implementations
> > ignore the variants.
>
> I think you may have left something out.  If variants are simply
> ignored. then zh-Latn-pinyin is no better than zh-Latn, over which
> cmn-Latn is recommended.  Do you mean that variants might be ignored
> when the preceding subtags are not documented as suitable?
>
> Richard.
>
> >
> > Mark (📱)
> >
> > On Fri, May 27, 2022, 16:55 John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, May 27, 2022 at 6:26 PM Richard Wordingham
> > > <richard.wordingham= 40ntlworld.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > In accordance with BCP 47, is the complete tag "cmn-Latn-pinyin"
> > >> supposed to be suitable for Mandarin in Han pinyin?
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes, that is suitable.
> > >
> > >> My qualm is that
> > >> the variant tag should have prefix "zh-Latn" when used for Chinese,
> > >>
> > >
> > > Prefixes associated with a variant subtag are permissive and
> > > informative only.
> > >
> > > which suggests, contrary to other recommendations, that one should
> > >> rather use "zh-cmn-Latn-pinyin".  Do we perhaps need to add another
> > >> prefix to this and similar variants?
> > >>
> > >
> > > We could add "cmn" and "cmn-Latn" as prefixes, yes, but we are not
> > > required to do so.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > > Ietf-languages@ietf.org
> > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> > >
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email