RE: [Ltru] Re: Identifying script (or global) variants

The way things are now, strictly speaking, both cho-fonipa and cho-Latn-fonipa (intentionally picking a non en example for a moment) are equally valid. I was a little surprised -- I guess I was thinking fonipa would have specified a prefix of Latn. Mind you, if Latn was specified as a prefix for fonipa, then there'd be a bit of confusion in the case of some languages, like en, since they specify "Suppress-script: Latn". So, at present, it seems like the recommendation implied by the current sub-tag registry and RFC 4646 (for good or bad) is *not* to include Latn.

Peter Constable

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Hosken [mailto:martin_hosken@sil.org]
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 10:35 PM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Identifying script (or global) variants

Dear All,

I realise I may have slipped in 2 questions here that I was after
asking. In addition to knowing which order variants can occur, I'm also
not sure whether Latn is required since en has a Latn suppress script on
it. Does adding fonipa require that the Latn reappear or can it remain
suppressed?
>
>     Neither do I want to reopen that debate. But I do have some basic
>     questions that I hope you can help with. Let's take the example of
>     scouse English in IPA. How would I tag this?
>
>     en-Latn-scouse-fonipa
>     en-Latn-fonipa-scouse
>     en-fonipa-scouse
>     en-scouse-fonipa
>

TIA,
Martin

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru