Phillips, Addison, Wed, 16 Dec 2009 11:08:07 -0500: > [..] the authors (they represent the W3C SSML [..] had reasons to seek > a separate registry which didn't seem unreasonable to me at the time. > > The main thing is that pronunciation schemes tend to be vendor > specific and are not necessarily transcriptions or, in fact, even > useful outside the speech synthesis process. It seems unlikely to me > that the language subtag registry would take in a wide variety of > these things, especially the vendor-specific variations. They cease to be vendor specific when registered in the Pronunciation Registry (PR), just as windows-1252 has long ago ceased to be Windows specific. PR obviously should exist on its own. But perhaps it would be useful if there were cooperation between the PR and LTR: * PR could be shaped more like LTR is. What about recommending "pinyin-2001" instead of "pinyin2001"? Then it would be easy to reuse '2001' in LTR, if requested. And 'fonipa' could be registered in the PR as an alias for 'ipa', to reflect the LTRU registry. * Many pronunciations alphabets are unregistered, and regardless of where they would registered first, the tag they would get in the first registration, could be a candidate for reuse in the other registry. Examples of unregistered (anywhere) pronunciation alphabets that I am aware of: * the Russian phonetic/pronunciation alphabet for use in education and teaching of Russian. It only uses a subset of the usual Russian Cyrillic letters + diacritical marks. * Norvegia, for the notation of spoken/dialect Norwegian (in use since 19th century) [1][2] * Danish has the Danica alphabet and Swedish has a similar thing.[2] I can already say that we ourselves in our teaching material efforts would have found it practical if there existed a LTR variant subtag for the Russian pronunciation alphabet. [1] http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norvegia_(lydskrift) [2] http://www.hum.uit.no/Forproven/Fagpresentasjoner/lydskrift.html -- leif halvard silli
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.