Subject: Re: [Ltru] 4.5: canonicalization and subtags mapped to Preferred-Value

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:57:12 -0600

Martin Hosken <martin underscore hosken at sil dot org> wrote:

> In addition, I would like to ask about fonipa and fonupa. Currently in 
> 4645 they have no prefix, which makes sense since they can be used 
> with any language. But they can only be used with Latn script. In 
> fact, they imply Latn script. So what should the canonical form of 
> Eastern Bru in IPA be?
>
> bru-Latn-fonipa
>
> or can we in some way indicate the implication of Latn by fonipa and 
> just use:
>
> bru-fonipa

Since, as you point out, the variant subtags 'fonipa' and 'fonupa' 
implicitly identify the script as Latin, it is not necessary to use 
'Latn' along with one of these variants.  There is no mechanism in 
either the Registry or RFC 4646 to indicate this.

> I would suggest that if we want to do this, then specifying a prefix 
> in the record for fonipa, of Latn would be sufficient although we may 
> want some wording somewhere along the lines of:
>
> Where the prefix tag for a variant consists of a script, that variant 
> implies the presence of that prefix and the prefix is required not to 
> exist in the canonical form of the tag.

First, a script subtag, by itself, cannot be a prefix for anything. 
Second, this would turn the concept of a prefix completely upside down; 
normally a prefix of subtag X is a subtag or tag that MUST exist in a 
tag containing subtag X.

What you are looking for is something like Suppress-Script, but for 
variants instead of languages.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Arvada, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

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