Re: Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

Just saw your message.

That ticket was not assigned a milestone, as it should have been when it
was reviewed.

We'll still want to assign it as an m0, since we ignore the variants for
transliteration.



Mark

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Élie Roux <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Le 09/03/2018 à 15:49, Phillips, Addison a écrit :
>
>> While that would fix the length issue, I'm pretty sure you don't
>> want to track version numbers unless the change in version is highly
>> significant.
>>
>
> Well, I was just copying the alalc97 subtag... but as you say, it's
> problematic.
>
> Since this is a transliteration scheme, have you looked at the -t-
>> extension?
>>
>
> I did: http://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/10547
>
> After a few months of silence I've just received an answer a few minutes
> ago, so maybe that will work.
>
> But alalc97 is still registered in IANA even if
>
> http://unicode.org/repos/cldr/trunk/common/bcp47/transform.xml
>
> contains "alaloc". I admit I would really prefer having bo-ewts20 than
> bo-t-m0-ewts...
>
>
> Thank you,
> --
> Elie
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>

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