Re: [VCARDDAV] Review of draft-fukuda-vcarddav-phonetic-transcription-01.txt

Gren Elliot <> Fri, 20 September 2013 09:05 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0D5B21F8E21 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.198
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.198 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.402, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o2U1NHxdeyW0 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::231]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56E9D21F8C93 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:05:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id k15so267945qaq.15 for <>; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=iGoU8TSH2WURp+kK8oiGxy7ctQvhnFRCjFW9EAaQXms=; b=fmSp21IyRagk7HE8NqB8RvI/rTpFEbFUJCoT+2SRBYRynVfsbb/zWcmgOVqrptzjl5 bmH7wYM8uIrKgs54OA92NM0rKLio3SlNgRC9AGyDrPuWgnIa3waXnz/fcIVf7USWv9I+ YSDW/Q6x6MClEbUszA1NUpwBtK9uBw0ZCYEP7K+n8ZKd41tEuv51phqLH6qWknai6y5n gEXvlWinWWgkuS2qG48vT4Tffm88JVNRe26aQCU9p2gGbw47sSYcmJmgR9qbWScl9GuB w3z2vrCBlAGDfplBg6SdoGgnv3qlB2HnUz+Ns5mGKSYNa35ICvD099g8r9OKDqmlbT2K EZcA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id e2mr9338110qee.21.1379667934761; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 20 Sep 2013 02:05:34 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 10:05:34 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Gren Elliot <>
To: "" <>,,
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [VCARDDAV] Review of draft-fukuda-vcarddav-phonetic-transcription-01.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF vcarddav wg mailing list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 09:05:36 -0000

Hi Fukada-san and DataPacRat,

> I'm not sure if you meant to use the 'Type' parameter in your second
> example; instead of
> you may have meant something more like
> PHONETIC-FULL-NAME;LANGUAGE=fonxsamp:jamada ta4oM;;
> or
> PHONETIC-FULL-NAME;LANGUAGE=jp-fonxsamp:jamada ta4oM;;

I think the original example is more accurate.  "ja" is an appropriate
setting for a language but I don't believe either "fonxsamp" or
"jp-fonxsamp" fit the description of a language.

I'd like to look at 2 examples to illustrate another issue with
treating LANGUAGE as the most important parameter.

If you understand Japanese and specifically Hiragana/Katakana work,
you can guess that the text of the following will be only Hiragana or
Katakana.  However, nothing actually says that, and I think that is
crucial missing information.

      ; <U+XXXX> denotes a UTF8-encoded Unicode character.

However, even if you understand English:


wouldn't help you pronounce that name.  Most English people would
probably guess wrong.

I think TYPE or MEDIA-TYPE are more appropriate.  Given Cyrus Daboo's
familiarity with the RFC process, I suspect his suggestions are likely
to be the better of these two.  I propose MEDIATYPE in preference to
TYPE.  The default should be:

MEDIATYPE=text/ipa; option=x-sampa

The full Hiragana example would then become:

      ; <U+XXXX> denotes a UTF8-encoded Unicode character.

Thanks and regards,