Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

Mark separately quoted the relevant paragraph from BCP 47. 

Generally I recommend against using the script subtag. I certainly have the problem Karen describes, but usually I find that the audio vs. written distinction is well-communicated by the context.

No language tag is "perfect" for all possible uses. As I tend to prefer succinct tags to verbose ones, I generally recommend against tagging audio content with 'Zxxx'. In chatting with Mark, though, I have seen that it can work well in applications that expect it.

Additional "language modalities" strike me as even less interesting to tag: "Japanese transcribed into sign language by a one-handed person from the original song as hummed in an Italian accent".

Addison

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Doug
> Ewell
> Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 2:39 PM
> To: Broome, Karen; Mark Davis ☕
> Cc: ltru@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
> 
> 'Zxxx' originally did mean "code for unwritten languages," at least in ISO 15924,
> but there's no way anyone could interpret "en-Zxxx" or "ja-Zxxx" as meaning
> those languages are unwritten. Thus I'm not sure where the ambiguity lies.
> 
> If it really is necessary to use BCP 47 tags to indicate explicitly whether content
> is written or spoken, then 'Zxxx' is the tool for the job. But I still wonder how
> slippery this slope might turn out to be--spoken vs. sung, handwritten vs. typed
> vs. painted on a sign, etc.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell • doug@ewellic.org
> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru