- From: <ishida@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 16:52:03 +0100
- To: Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>, Xidorn Quan <me@upsuper.org>, Koji Ishii <kojiishi@gmail.com>
- Cc: John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>, 董福興 <bobbytung@wanderer.tw>, CJK discussion <public-i18n-cjk@w3.org>, Makoto Kato <m_kato@ga2.so-net.ne.jp>, 劉慶 <ryukeikun@gmail.com>
On 27/07/2016 09:04, Martin J. Dürst wrote: > 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 also like this approach. It is technology agnostic, but provides a fuller picture of useful chinese requirements. It also locates the information in a place where it's easy to find at a later date. To be clear, i'm thinking about a list, perhaps in an appendix, that says something like: ======================== The following languages, as described by BCP47 language tags, map by default to writing systems as follows. Simplified Chinese cmn zh-cmn gan czh ... Traditional Chinese hak zh-hak lzh zh-lzh nan ... Traditional Chinese with Hong Kong additions yue zh-yue There are cases, such as hak where a different mapping may be valid. In particular, if a language is expressed using a BCP 47 script tag, such as cmn-hant, the script tag determines the writing system to be used. ============================ If we want to be more thorough, we can list the names of the languages, per BCP 47, rather than just the codes as shown above, eg. cmn mandarin chinese zh-cmn mandarin chinese ... hak hakka chinese zh-hak hakka chinese lzh literary chinese ... Would the clreq folks be happy to do something like that? ri
Received on Wednesday, 27 July 2016 15:52:16 UTC