Re: Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

Also quoting from a fork:

> I admit I would really prefer having bo-ewts20 than bo-t-m0-ewts...

Can you demonstrate any requirement of a tag that would be met by a tag bo-extwylie but would not be adequately met by a tag bo-t-m0-ewts...? ("I would really prefer" is not a tagging requirement.)


Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Ietf-languages <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Élie Roux
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 2:35 AM
To: ietf-languages@iana org <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

Hi All,

> This is a good point. It's perhaps worth noting that we have not 
> registered a new subtag for a transliteration scheme (excluding 
> phonetic alphabets) since 2011, when the T extension came into 
> existence.

So, is it the end of the discussion and is the final decision "we don't register transliteration schemes"?

Thank you,
--
Elie

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fietf-languages&data=04%7C01%7Cpetercon%40microsoft.com%7C916dc0d7cc6c465f697e08d587fc8e73%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636564441161131392%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwifQ%3D%3D%7C-1&sdata=EVoj5uZ2LXsKROFBV9EmcsQZ61Xx3LLLbycR6U%2F2eVo%3D&reserved=0
_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages