Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

> So we have a small impasse, indicative of the larger problem here: do we or do we not
> recommend against the use of 'zh' to tag Mandarin Chinese? It isn't the tagging of
> Cantonese that is the controversy. It is whether 'zh' is equated with Mandarin.

I would recommend against tagging Mandarin chinese with zh.  Most people seem to be fairly clear that "zh" means "general unspecified chinese" and "cmn" means Mandarin.

--
<t>With the adoption of this document, subtags for the encompassed languages became available for use in language tags. These subtags SHOULD be used instead of the macrolanguage subtag 'zh' to identify Chinese language content. While documents written in Standard Mandarin could use the 'cmn' (Mandarin) subtag, their wide accessibility can be indicated by using the 'zh' subtag in this case.</t>
--
<shawn> this makes no sense :)  The middle sentence ways "use cmn instead of zh". and the final sentence says "use zh instead of cmn".  If the last sentence is necessary, then it should mention back compat or other mechanisms (like as part of a list that also includes cmn).  The way its written is like saying "tag english as 001 (world) because lots of people can read it".  I don't think that zh should ever be appropriate for cmn (excluding maybe back compat concerns), unless people really don't know which chinese it is.  It has been made very clear that although most Cantonese speakers may be able to read Mandarin, it is not sort of general chinese readable by all when read, it is Mandarin.

- Shawn
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru