Dear John, >>> My understanding of RFC 4646 is that extensions like intlphon need to >>> be registered *per language*. There seems to be no concept of script >>> extensions. So either we have to hide it behind a chr-Lphn-t-ipa-phn >>> (ipa phonemic) or do something else? But I may have misread the RFC. >>> >> Extensions do not have to be language-specific AFAICT. >> > > I think Martin means variants rather than extensions. > Sorry. Indeed I should have written variants rather than extensions. As I see it we have a problem on our hands regarding scripts. I am not just talking here about transliteration schemes, I'm talking about scripts and script variants, including the Polytonic greek question, the myriad of Arabic and Burmese and who knows what else script variants that are out there. I think it is unreasonable to try to pressure ISO 15924 to become a standard aimed at supporting something it was designed to support. But further than that we do need to acknowledge that many of these things are script variants and not just new scripts (despite my feelings about IPA :)) Mark has shown the difficulty of using the existing variant scheme for scripts in that script variants, since they constitute writing systems, have a greater effect on a text than does regional variation and that because current variants are stored after the region identifier are considered of lower importance. I would like to offer a possible solution for people to consider/laugh at/whatever. I suggest that we introduce the concept of a script variant that modifies a script subtag, that is valid for all languages and is only scoped by the script it occurs following. The subtag shall be 4 characters long and start with an initial capital letter just like an existing script subtag. Given the space within ISO 15924 I'm sure we can come to some agreement over carving out a codespace for such variants. Failing that we could make the variant start and finish with a capital letter or use any capitalisation trick we feel like using to mark this thing. Since it is exactly 4 chars long it looks like a script tag to existing mechanisms (although if they are hyper strict they will get fed up) and would occur before the region subtag and after the script tag. They would be clearly identifiable since they are neither the right size for a region subtag or a variant subtag. The effect would be to add a mechanism of script variation that would take priority over regions, be clearly identifiable and would resolve many of the frustrations over ISO 15924. I hasten to add that I am *not* suggesting this as a solution to the transcription extensions issue, which I agree should be handled via an extension. I *am* suggesting it as a solution to the scripts question where a particular script variant may occur across many languages and is identifiably different in some key respect (here unspecified) to the script it is varying from. Thank you for your consideration. Yours, Martin Hosken _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.