RE: Simplified or traditional for each Chinese macrolanguage

Martin mentioned:

> >> What do you think about having this information in CLREQ, or maybe in
> >> a separate I18N WG note if WG prefers? That should get wider reviews
> >> then.
> >>
> >> It might also be nice to explicitly mention that authors can/should
> >> add script subtag to pick the other choice than the default.
> >
> > The attachment is the list I'm currently going to submit to our code.
> > Two CLReq editors reviewed this list and think it looks good.
> >
> > Richard: could you review this list as well, and if everything looks fine, could
> you probably consider putting it as an I18N WG note? Editors of CLReq don't
> think this kind of details fit in CLReq.
> 
> It seems overkill to create a WG note for a list of about 40 lines. But of course
> if somebody writes the document and Richard is fine with handling the
> publishing overhead, I won't object.

It does seem like overkill for a WG Note. I don't actually agree with the editors of CLReq. This might not be part of the body of CLReq, but it would make a nifty appendix. 

If made standalone, I tend to think that this would make a better Q&A or article. We have quite a number of useful small documents, including those about languages and language tags. Not everything needs to be normative. 

> This also shows a possible way to integrate this information into CLReq:
> State it as information about current practice (e.g. Hakka is predominantly
> written with a (Taiwanese style) traditional Hanzi font), and leave the
> implementation details (which should be rather
> straightforward) to other specs or implementations.
> 

I agree.

Addison

Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 14:50:46 UTC