Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

Dear all,

I'm working at Buddhist Digital Resource Center (https://www.tbrc.org/)
and as we're moving to RDF, we defined the lang tags we needed on

https://github.com/BuddhistDigitalResourceCenter/owl-schema/blob/master/lang-tags.md

(lists towards the end, all comments are welcome). We had to define
custom tags for many of them and I would like to try having some of them
officially registered to improve interoperability with related projects.
Don't hesitate to tell me if I'm taking the wrong approach. Here's the
first attempt, with the tag we have the most in our dataset:


LANGUAGE SUBTAG REGISTRATION FORM
1. Name of requester: Elie Roux
2. E-mail address of requester: [email protected]
3. Record Requested:

    Type: variant
    Subtag: ewts
    Description: Extended Wylie Transliteration Scheme (EWTS)
    Prefix: bo

4. Intended meaning of the subtag:
5. Reference to published description
    of the language (book or article):
6. Any other relevant information:
    Common romanization of Tibetan, defined by
       http://www.thlib.org/reference/transliteration/#!essay=/thl/ewts/
    Applies primarily to Tibetan and Sanskrit transliterated in Tibetan
script.
    It could be applied to Dzongkha and other languages using the Tibetan
script,
    but would then lack some features (notably the Dzongkha affixes like
in རྒྱལཔོ།).
    Hence the bo prefix, but maybe it could be extended.


A question I have is about having -Latn in the prefix. Here is first a
little bit of context:
- pinyin mandates the -Latn script indication: zh-Latn-pinyin and not
zh-pinyin
- alalc97 seems to be different (unless I'm mistaken): bo-alalc97 and
not bo-Latn-alac97
- some "romanizations" are not entirely in the Latn script, the
romanization used by Poppe for Classical Mongolian uses Latin characters
plus γ (GREEK SMALL LETTER GAMMA)
- because Ewts transliteration is non-ambiguously in the Latn script, we
decided to use bo-x-ewts instead of bo-Latn-x-ewts

If this new variant subtag was to be accepted, would its correct use be
bo-Latn-ewts or bo-ewts?

Thank you,
-- 
Elie

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages