Re: Question about new locale language tags

From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2006 - 01:05:39 CST

  • Next message: Shohji Itoh: "U+3401"

    Arne Götje (高盛華) <arne at linux dot org dot tw> wrote:

    > uh... Amis, as well as all the other indigenous languages in Taiwan
    > have absolutely nothing in common with Chinese, they are all separate
    > languages and are also not related to each other... so, why use the
    > zh- tag?

    Only the following languages are encompassed by the ISO/FDIS 639-3
    macrolanguage "Chinese":

    Gan (gan)

    Hakka (hak)
    Huizhou (czh)
    Jinyu (cjy)

    Mandarin (cmn)
    Min Bei (mnp)

    Min Dong (cdo)
    Min Nan (nan)
    Min Zhong (czo)
    Pu-Xian (cpx)
    Wu (wuu)
    Xiang (hsn)
    Yue (yue)

    The others, such as Amis, are not covered by a macrolanguage and so
    would not have a "zh-" prefix or any other prefix when used as a
    language tag.

    > In my opinion, either a standalone 'ami-TW' or the grandfathered
    > 'i-ami-TW' would be much better than the zh- tag.

    Once again... the grandfathered tags such as "i-ami" may only be used as
    is, and may not have additional subtags like "TW" added to them.

    > Where to complain to about this? :)

    It might be good, when reviewing the work done by the ISO 639-3 people
    and the language-tag people, to think in terms of Positive Contributions
    and Constructive Comments instead of "complaining." Sometimes there is
    no actual problem, simply a misunderstanding, as here.

    --
    Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
    http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
    http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
    http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 21 2006 - 01:09:05 CST