Subject: RE: [Ltru] date B = 2005-01-01

From: "Peter Constable" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 11:12:04 -0700

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]
On Behalf Of
> Frank Ellermann

> Further I want to express that I do not trust anybody involved
> in the registrations of MO-languages.

That's a rather extreme and all-encompassing statement. 

It strikes me as particularly extreme given information indicating that
Chinese experts in the region would distinguish Mandarin/traditional
content in Taiwan, Hong Kong, PRC and Macao. Moreover, use of zh-Hant-MO
or zh-Hans-MO to distinguish Macao from other regions can be no more
problematic than current use of zh-MO.

Peter Constable

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 21:20:55 +0200

> That's a rather extreme and all-encompassing statement.

It was as a personal statement, but maybe that's clearer in
other forms:

"Script debate closed by Chinese tags" (Ira)
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/1039>

"Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN" (John)
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/1292>

"Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN" (Harald)
<http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages/1191>

> Chinese experts in the region would distinguish
> Mandarin/traditional content in Taiwan, Hong Kong, PRC and
> Macao.

See <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.languages:1380> from
Mark, he quotes:

| If you were to ask most computer scientists in HK whether or
| not it makes sense to distinguish zh-Hant-HK from zh-Hant-TW,
| they'd say, "Of course, and don't forget Macao."

That's no evidence, it's an assumption based on some fictitious
hearsay.

> use of zh-Hant-MO or zh-Hans-MO to distinguish Macao from
> other regions can be no more problematic than current use of
> zh-MO.

If it ends as grandfathered "junk" under the future 3066bis
there's a difference.  Each additional grandfathered tag could
be a reason to not implement / support RfC 3066bis at all and
wait for some kind of "better" 3066ter.

                       Bye, Frank