Re: Registration request: fonkirsh

Sascha Brawer wrote:

> Instead of registering a BCP47 variant subtag for the Kirshenbaum
> alphabet, an alternative might be tagging such content with BCP47
> extension T. In that case, English content in the Kirshenbaum phonetic
> alphabet would probably be tagged as “en-fonipa-t-d0-fonkirsh”. If the
> language wasn’t known, the tag would be “und-fonipa-t-d0-fonkirsh”.
> (Assuming, of course, that we’d register a BCP47 extension T subtag
> into Unicode’s registry).

We have continued to register variant subtags for phonetic alphabets
('fonnapa' and 'unifon') since the publication of extension T, which is
not the case for standards for transliterating a language from one
script to another.

On the other hand, CLDR (the source of identifiers for extension T) has
plenty identifiers for transliteration standards, but none for phonetic
alphabets.

Therefore, my opinion (worth the paper it's written on) is that a
variant subtag is the right solution for Kirshenbaum, whereas EWTS
should be coded via extension T.
 
--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org


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