From: Philippe Verdy (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Fri Nov 25 2005 - 16:43:18 CST
From: "Tom Emerson" <email@example.com>
> 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
> 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