From: Doug Ewell (dewell@adelphia.net)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2006 - 01:05:39 CST
Arne Götje (高盛華) <arne at linux dot org dot tw> wrote:
> uh... Amis, as well as all the other indigenous languages in Taiwan
> have absolutely nothing in common with Chinese, they are all separate
> languages and are also not related to each other... so, why use the
> zh- tag?
Only the following languages are encompassed by the ISO/FDIS 639-3
macrolanguage "Chinese":
Gan (gan)
Hakka (hak)
Huizhou (czh)
Jinyu (cjy)
Mandarin (cmn)
Min Bei (mnp)
Min Dong (cdo)
Min Nan (nan)
Min Zhong (czo)
Pu-Xian (cpx)
Wu (wuu)
Xiang (hsn)
Yue (yue)
The others, such as Amis, are not covered by a macrolanguage and so
would not have a "zh-" prefix or any other prefix when used as a
language tag.
> In my opinion, either a standalone 'ami-TW' or the grandfathered
> 'i-ami-TW' would be much better than the zh- tag.
Once again... the grandfathered tags such as "i-ami" may only be used as
is, and may not have additional subtags like "TW" added to them.
> Where to complain to about this? :)
It might be good, when reviewing the work done by the ISO 639-3 people
and the language-tag people, to think in terms of Positive Contributions
and Constructive Comments instead of "complaining." Sometimes there is
no actual problem, simply a misunderstanding, as here.
-- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 21 2006 - 01:09:05 CST