Subject: [Ietf-languages] language variant subtag "pinyin" modification request

From: Phake Nick <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 20:23:31 +0800

1. Name of requester: Phake Nick
2. E-mail address of requester: [email-masked]
3. Record Requested:

Type: variant
Subtag: pinyin
Description: Pinyin romanization
Prefix: zh-Latn
Prefix: zh
Prefix: bo-Latn
Suppress-Script:
Macrolanguage:
Comments:

4. Intended meaning of the subtag: Same as the existing "pinyin" subtag
5. Reference to published description
      of the language (book or article): See the "any other relevant
information" field for details
6. Any other relevant information:
The request is a request to modify an existing entry, with the aim of
adding an additional prefix for the variant subtag "pinyin". The proposed
"zh-pinyin" tag would have same effect as "zh-Latn-pinyin" but it is
shorter and is currently in use in multiple places to reflect Chinese
content being written in Pinyin romanization, including OpenStreetMap. See
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Multilingual_names#China

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2018 14:06:52 -0700

> Description: Pinyin romanization

I'm not entirely sure of the benefits of having both "zh" and "zh-Latn"
as Prefix fields for the same variant, since the more general Prefix
generally encompasses the more specific. But since it's an example in
Section 2.2.5, and we have some cases of this in the Registry ('1994',
'ekavsk', 'ijekavsk'), I won't argue, except perhaps to wonder why this
request isn't made for ''bo' as well.

> Comments:

As an administrative note, it's not necessary to include these blank
fields in a proposal. The form in Section 3.5 merely shows all the
fields that /could/ be included if necessary. I realize the document
doesn't make this very clear.

> adding an additional prefix for the variant subtag "pinyin". The
> proposed "zh-pinyin" tag would have same effect as "zh-Latn-pinyin"
> but it is shorter and is currently in use in multiple places to
> reflect Chinese content being written in Pinyin romanization,

There are pros and cons to this. Suggesting "zh-pinyin" instead of, or
in addition to, "zh-Latn-pinyin" does make the tag shorter (remember
that Prefix is only a suggestion, not a matter of "permit" vs.
"prohibit," although not everyone understands this). Since Pinyin is a
romanization scheme, it may seem a bit redundant to suggest 'Latn' as
well. Many tags do assume a certain amount of knowledge on the user's
part (e.g. what exactly distinguishes "en-GB" from en-US"?); assuming
the user knows that Pinyin is Latin script doesn't seem far-fetched.

On the other hand, "zh-Latn-pinyin" would correctly match a request for
"zh-Latn" using the truncate-from-right approach, while "zh-pinyin"
would not. It would be identifiable to any human reader as "Chinese in
Latin script," which is what it is. (Question: why is this request not
also being made for 'wadegile' and 'hepburn' and 'jyutping'?) And Prefix
is only a suggestion, so it isn't really necessary. Plus, there is a
school of thought on this list that redundancy of the type exemplified
by "zh-Latn-pinyin" is desirable.

I will defer to other as to the merits of this request.

> including OpenStreetMap. See

That page makes several false or questionable statements about BCP 47
language tagging, and I might not want to present it as representative
of the users who would benefit from your request. Among other things,
the page states under "Issues" that only valid BCP 47 tags can be used
in OSM, but under "China" it recommends using the invalid "zh_pinyin"
(with underscore) instead of a valid tag, even the currently
non-suggested but valid "zh-pinyin". It also suggests using invalid tags
in the Japan section, where it makes the bizarre statement that "BCP 47
makes no difference between '-' and '_'". Be careful when citing this
project.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org