RE: Transliteration

At 12:15 20.10.98 +0100, Carrasco Benitez Manuel wrote:
>I could write a new proposal using a (new) "t" in the primary 
>language tag.
>

this sounds very wrong to me; t isn't a language, nor is t- a family
of languages that shares something in common.

>e.g.,
>
> t-el        (Greek transformation using the default scheme)
> t-el-foo   (Greek transformation using the scheme foo)
>
>With the danger that this implies, ISO-639 could be used
>to name transformations:
>
>e.g.
> t-el-en    (Greek transformation for English, using the
>               default scheme for this language pair)
>

I would prefer, if this is going to be done at all:

el-script-latin (Greek written with Latin letters)
el-script-latin-farouk (Greek written with Latin letters according to
                        Farouk's set of transliteration rules)
en-cockney-script-ipa (Cockney English written in the International
                       Phonetic Alphabet)
fr-CA-script-braille (French-Canadian written in Braille)


Note that there are many examples where one would put the "-script-" tag in
positions other than the first one; Canadian French is still fr-CA no
matter what the representation is.

I would also prefer the script to be documented as a convention, and
have each specific new scheme or usage registered as a language tag
in the language tag registry. It never hurts to register....

Note that the single tag

Content-language: en-cockney-script-ipa

could also be expressed as

Content-language: en-cockney
Content-script: ipa

and thus have no impact on language matching algorithms.
The tradeoff between those two must be made on other arguments.

                         Harald A

-- 
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, Maxware, Norway
Harald.Alvestrand@maxware.no

Received on Tuesday, 20 October 1998 07:47:10 UTC