Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Forms for July 2017 changes to ISO 15924

From: Hugh Paterson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 00:59:19 -0700

My impression of Naxi, having only met one linguist researcher who has
worked in those communites, is that the communities use a logographic
script, but couldn't that be determined for sure by consulting the ISO
script to see what is the code range of unicode characters are refernced in
the script?

My impression of the way that proposal is written in this email is that it
is an IPA transcription. I'm not sure that IPA transcriptions make a whole
lot of sense in these tags.

However, a few years ago i created a keyboard layout for a chinantec
language of mexico, some chinantec orthographies actually do use
superscript numbers in their orthography.

So if the objection is to the character range in the script tag itself
rather than to the represntative content in the various fields then that
should be caefully defined. If the gate keeping needs to be done at the ISO
level who is going to take that feedback to the ISO group? It makes sense
to me that there is some mirroring going on between the two standards.

all the best,
- Hugh Paterson III

On Aug 1, 2017 12:11 AM, "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Peter Constable wrote:

> I was not asking "what are they doing here". My only concern is that,
> if we are providing a phonetic transcription of a language name, that
> it should be the autoglossonym as pronounced by a native speaker.

We are providing Description fields in the Registry that reflect the
English name field ISO 15924. That is what BCP 47 requires, or at least
appears to require.

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

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