Dear Addison, > > The proper "repair" to this issue is to fix ISO 15924. Multiple script > subtags would be very difficult for users to understand and use > consistently. And we'd have to deal with canonical ordering rules, > prefix checking, and all sorts of other nastiness---all to figure out > which Latin transcription was used? Bah. The registrar of ISO 15924 has indicated that he has no intention of ever giving IPA a script code and that it is a variant of Latn. Perhaps you can get him to change his mind, but I doubt it. So where does that leave me? How do I tag text in the IPA script that can be in any language? You are asking me to live between a rock and a hard place. As Mark has stated, we need something to indicate that a script variant is more significant than a region. For example, please prioritise the aspects of "UK Glaswegian English written in IPA" in terms of the components that have the most significance on the text and you will find that UK comes last and Glaswegian second to last. But if IPA is marked by an extension, it will come last. I estimate that there are probably in the order of 10 scripts needing on average 2-3 variants each. But that depends on what we see as being a script variant. In discussions with the ISO 15924 registrar on this, he seemed open to the idea of extending the private use script code space. In addition, I agree that since a script variant (in my 4 character scheme) would always occur after a real script, there is no need to worry about codespace overlap. > > Not to mention: if script variations aren't registered in 15924, where > will they come from? What rules will be applied to their registration? > Why does anyone think ietf-languages will be a good arbiter of said > variations? ISO 15924 hasn't scored too highly for us so far. Addressing what a script variant really is will need some discussion, of course. Remember that ISO 15924 isn't our standard to control. It's coming from TC46. In the meantime, please send me the form to request 7000 language variants or extensions (since both are registered by language). I would encourage folks to think about how the language tag can be made productive. If every possible language tag in effect has to be registered, it will push many tags underground and the x- extension space will become far more popular than we might want it to be. I, for example, have to deal with emerging writing systems and storing data in them for archival purposes long before such writing systems are well established (in some cases), if every such instance needs to be registered RFC4646 will be seen as a bottle kneck to be worked around rather than in collaboration with. Yours, Martin _______________________________________________ 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.