Re: Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

> You could also go with 'extwylie' or similar.
> 
> I don't know if the version number will contribute to proper tag 
> selection more than it will add to confusion. That depends on
> whether users actually think of the scheme as "EWTS 2.0" and whether
> it differs enough from 1.0 or a future 3.0 to justify separate
> tagging.

Clearly, nobody thinks of it as EWTS 2.0, it's just EWTS. I think
extwylie is definitely a better choice then, thanks for the suggestion!

> In November 2009 when 'alalc97' was proposed, we discussed whether
> we wanted to constrain that subtag to a specific transcription
> standard published in a specific year, and the answer was yes, we
> did. It was a conscious decision.

I see

> As far as the Prefix is concerned, you are correct that the Registry
> is inconsistent with regard to recommending 'Latn' for variant
> subtags for romanizations. The topic is discussed anew on this list
> every time such a variant is proposed, and we don't always reach the
> same conclusion each time. This request will likely start that debate
> all over again.

I see! We also had the same problem internally (bo-Latn-x-ewts vs.
bo-x-ewts), and the consensus also was very fragile...

Thank you,
-- 
Elie