Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2018 09:09:36 -0700

Élie Roux wrote:

> I see... sorry for my confusion! What about ewts20? There is a version
> number on
>
> http://www.thlib.org/reference/transliteration/#!essay=/thl/ewts/
>
> after all. I really don't think it's going to evolve but that would be
> a two birds one stone situation (adding version and being 5 to 8
> letters long).

You could also go with 'extwylie' or similar.

I don't know if the version number will contribute to proper tag
selection more than it will add to confusion. That depends on whether
users actually think of the scheme as "EWTS 2.0" and whether it differs
enough from 1.0 or a future 3.0 to justify separate tagging.

In November 2009 when 'alalc97' was proposed, we discussed whether we
wanted to constrain that subtag to a specific transcription standard
published in a specific year, and the answer was yes, we did. It was a
conscious decision.

As far as the Prefix is concerned, you are correct that the Registry is
inconsistent with regard to recommending 'Latn' for variant subtags for
romanizations. The topic is discussed anew on this list every time such
a variant is proposed, and we don't always reach the same conclusion
each time. This request will likely start that debate all over again.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org

---

From: Élie Roux <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2018 17:14:44 +0100

> selection more than it will add to confusion. That depends on
> whether users actually think of the scheme as "EWTS 2.0" and whether
> it differs enough from 1.0 or a future 3.0 to justify separate
> tagging.

Clearly, nobody thinks of it as EWTS 2.0, it's just EWTS. I think
extwylie is definitely a better choice then, thanks for the suggestion!

> In November 2009 when 'alalc97' was proposed, we discussed whether
> we wanted to constrain that subtag to a specific transcription
> standard published in a specific year, and the answer was yes, we
> did. It was a conscious decision.

I see

> As far as the Prefix is concerned, you are correct that the Registry
> is inconsistent with regard to recommending 'Latn' for variant
> subtags for romanizations. The topic is discussed anew on this list
> every time such a variant is proposed, and we don't always reach the
> same conclusion each time. This request will likely start that debate
> all over again.

I see! We also had the same problem internally (bo-Latn-x-ewts vs.
bo-x-ewts), and the consensus also was very fragile...

Thank you,
-- 
Elie