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

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Winston Sung wrote:

>> But if the romanizations used with those other languages are
>> considered different — more different than, say, Chinese Pinyin and
>> Tibetan Pinyin (see variant 'pinyin') — then they should be different
>> subtags.
>
> Yeah, I believe it's the same case of Mandarin Pinyin and Tibetan
> Pinyin. As described in the previous mail, they should be different
> subtags.

I don’t want to go too far down this rabbit hole — after all, Winston did not request his two subtags for any Prefix fields besides "nan-Latn" — but I am curious about this comment.

There is one variant subtag, 'pinyin', for use with both Chinese and Tibetan. “It’s the same case [as Pinyin]” implies that the proposed Pe̍h-ōe-jī and Tâi-lô variants may also apply to other languages, whereas “they should be different subtags” implies the opposite.

--
Doug Ewell, CC, ALB | Lakewood, CO, US | ewellic.org