Re: Tibetan Ewts variant proposal (and related questions)

@Élie Roux,

Just a question about version numbers and corpora. If you were to imagine
an evolution in the transcription system from 2.0 to 3.0 would you imagine
that the encoded texts using the transcription system would all be updated.
Perhaps via a script? In some of the contexts where I work, colleagues
iterate through various orthography versions at a steady pace, this leaves
a trail of written text that does not always fit with the same parsing
rules for corpora analysis. In their cases not all the documents get
updated to the newest writing system. Arguably (and maybe preferably) in
the case of my colleagues, these are limited content texts and could use a
private use subtag. However, as I do corpora studies, it would be fantastic
if orthography descriptions were matched to tags used to encode textual
data.... It is a dream I know. But I am curious how you see this playing
out in your context.

all the best,
- Hugh

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:56 AM, Élie Roux <[email protected]>
wrote:

> No, we need to wait for the Language Subtag Reviewer, Michael
>> Everson, to make a decision.
>>
>> As he has recently moved house from Ireland to Scotland and is still
>> trying to get things settled, this may take some time.
>>
>> I have my opinions about how this should be handled, but the decision
>> is Michael's.
>>
>
> Ok! Thanks for the clarification!
> --
> 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