From: Tom Emerson (email@example.com)
Date: Sat Nov 26 2005 - 12:52:08 CST
Philippe Verdy writes:
> 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.
I agree with your core argument, but still disagree that any
particular romanization system can or should be inferred from the
> 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.
And it applies to the romanization of Japanese, Arabic, Persian,
Pashto, Kurdish, or pretty much any other non-Latin script writing
system that can be transliterated into Latin.
-- Tom Emerson Basis Technology Corp. Software Architect http://www.basistech.com "You can't fake quality any more than you can fake a good meal." (W.S.B.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 26 2005 - 13:16:10 CST