Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms for Min Nan variants

[Doug Ewell <[e-mail]>]

Re-adding the list...

Winston Sung wrote:

>> 1. The third (most recent) post, copied below, is intended as a
>> replacement for the previous two, and supersedes them.
>> 2. The proposed subtag value 'pehoeji' is being changed to 'vernhbl'
>> on the assumption that someone, perhaps Winston, may propose similar
>> subtags with values starting with 'vern' for other Min languages in
>> the future.
>
> Correct (and also for other non-Min Sinitic languages, e.g. Hakka).

I will post updated forms in the next day or so. Things like spacing (e.g. 2 leading spaces for continuation lines) and maximum line length (72 UTF-8 bytes) need to be corrected.

Do you want Section 5 of the registration forms (references) from your first post included in the final forms? They were omitted from your second and third posts. These are required fields, even if left blank.

> But would it be redundant to use something like hak-Latn-vernhak?

If you mean “would it be redundant for the letters 'hak' in the primary language subtag to be repeated in the variant?”, then yes, in a sense it would.

We have a policy that if a variant is to be used with different language prefixes, it must have essentially the same meaning. That is why, for example, there is no 'western' variant; the differences between “Western X” and “Eastern X” (or just plain “X”) have nothing to do with the western/eastern differences for languages Y and Z.

For a variant like 'pinyin', the system is considered essentially the same for Chinese and Tibetan, although of course there may be minor differences. Thus one can write "zh-Latn-pinyin" and "bo-Latn-pinyin". This is why the question of whether Pe̍h-ōe-jī is used for multiple languages was important — if the system is essentially the same, the languages could share a single variant subtag such as 'pehoeji'; if not, each language’s system needs its own subtag.

And, although these different variant subtags could theoretically have any value that is syntactically legal, it is usual to give them meaningful values.

In the first of your three posts, you did suggest meaningful but different subtag values for variants which might or might not ever be proposed for other languages:

“Vernacular Romanization Systems of Hakka [hak], Hainanese [proposed hnm], Fuzhou (Mindong [cdo]), Teochew (Pe̍h-ūe-jī), Minbei [mnp], Pu–Xian Min [cpx] should propose different subtag (for example, phakfasu, baehoetu) if needed.”

but for some reason you rejected those in your subsequent posts in favor of the systematic names which, of necessity, look redundant with their Prefix.

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