Re: ISO 15924: zh-Hani for general Chinese (was: Different Arabic scripts?)

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 16:43:18 CST

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: ISO 15924: zh-Hani for general Chinese (was: Different Arabic scripts?)"

    From: "Tom Emerson" <>
    > Philippe Verdy writes:
    >> In a locale, what differences does it make between "zh" (any Chinese
    >> language) and "zh-Hani" (any Han script) ? Except if one expects a
    >> difference for "zh-Latn" (Pinyin) or "zh-Bopo" (Bopomofo), it is unlikely
    >> that a resource localized for "zh" would use something else than a Han
    >> orthography, the alternatives being encoded separately for special local
    >> use.
    > Is it written somewhere that "zh-Latn" denotes Pinyin? It could just
    > as well represent Wade-Giles or Yale or Gwoyeu Romatzyh. What about
    > the various Cantonese romanizations used in Hong Kong.
    > Inferring transcription system from language/script codes is not a
    > good idea.

    It is not written, it is however a Chinese standard, and the most likely to
    occur. It does not change my argument however, whichever romanization system
    is used, it is still a distinction from the Han (any script) writing system,
    and "Latn" indicates such romanization.

    In fact the same remark applies to the romanization of Russian: several
    standards, including one ISO standard. They would still be indicated by
    "ru-Latn" instead of "ru" or "ru-Cyrl" for the normal cyrillic system.

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 25 2005 - 17:27:08 CST