Re: Tongyong Pinyin bites the dust (was: Pinyin)

Well, did you review it and find anything of concern?

My view is that if zh is replaced by jh etc then it’s not the same system. 

Michael

> On 1 Jan 2019, at 23:31, Doug Ewell <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I’m not going to fight this proposal. I just wanted to make sure the discussion 10 years ago was considered.
>  
> --
> Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
>  
> From: Michael Everson
> Sent: Tuesday, January 1, 2019 14:42
> To: IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Tongyong Pinyin bites the dust (was: Pinyin)
>  
> No one had asked for it though.
>  
> M
>  
> > On 18 Sep 2008, at 04:04, John Cowan <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Doug Ewell scripsit:
> >
> >> Unfortunately, this doesn't cause all existing Tongyong Pinyin content
> >> to vanish off the earth, and so if there was a need to tag Tongyong
> >> content before, that need has not gone away.
> >
> > True.  But it also means that we don't have to worry about how to
> > represent Tongyong at this stage, since no one has asked for it.  We can
> > decide later or never.
> >
> > --
> > John Cowan   [email protected]
>  
> _______________________________________________
> 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

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