Re: wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs

["Mark Davis" <[e-mail]>]

I believe the answer was stated. We're applying for a tag for Chinese Hanyu
Pinyin and Wade-Giles romanizations. That cannot be done with prefixes of
cmn or zh-cmn according to RFC 4646, which is the current specification in
force for the IANA language subtag registry. If and when RFC4646bis passes,
we would then register cmn or zh-cmn also as a prefix, but given the rate of
progress so far, that is in the indefinite future, perhaps never. Those
would be specifically Mandarin romanizations as opposed to Chinese
romanizations.

In any event, it is certainly well-defined, meaningful, and legitimate to
register "pinyin" and "wadegile" with the prefix "zh-Latn", as meaning
"Chinese momanizations"; they certainly exist and are in widespread usage.

Mark


On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Broome, Karen <[e-mail]>wrote:

>  I thought the use of the generic "zh" tag instead of "cmn" to indicate
> variants that only apply to Mandarin was a substantive objection. I also
> think that you deserve some sort of resolution of this issue.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Karen Broome
>
>
>
> *From:* [e-mail] [mailto:
> [e-mail]] *On Behalf Of *Mark Davis
> *Sent:* Monday, August 25, 2008 3:32 PM
> *To:* [e-mail]
> *Subject:* wadegile and pinyin LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORMs
>
>
>
> I have been waiting on two Language Subtag Registration Forms since Aug 2.
> I don't think there are an substantive objections, and we have the
> legitimate need to distinguish between the Hanyu Pinyin and the Wade-Giles
> romanizations of Chinese.
>
> The message subjects are:
>
>    1. LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R2): wadegile
>    2. LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM (R2): pinyin
>
> Mark
>
> PS. According to BCP 47 procedures:
>
>    When the two-week period has passed, the Language Subtag Reviewer
>
>    either forwards the record to be inserted or modified to
>
>    [e-mail] according to the procedure described in Section 3.3, or
>
>    rejects the request because of significant objections raised on the
>
>    list or due to problems with constraints in this document (which MUST
>
>    be explicitly cited).  The Language Subtag Reviewer MAY also extend
>
>    the review period in two-week increments to permit further
>
>    discussion.  The Language Subtag Reviewer MUST indicate on the list
>
>    whether the registration has been accepted, rejected, or extended
>
>    following each two-week period.
>
>
>