[tei-council] biblscope and imprint

[Kevin Hawkins]

On 11/5/12 12:06 PM, Martin Holmes wrote:
> Hi Kevin,
>
> On 12-11-05 06:29 AM, Kevin Hawkins wrote:
>> That document is helpful.  What wasn't clear to me about BCP 47 is
>> whether you could only use a script subtag in combination with a
>> language subtag if they were listed in combination in the IANA registry
>> (as some are).
>
> Absolutely not. The idea of the "suppress script" thing, if I understand
> it correctly, is that you _don't_ need to specify that script, because
> it's the default or obvious, so when you use just "ru", the script
> "Cyrl" is understood; but if a different script is used, then you should
> specify it.

Yes, I understand that.  I meant it's not clear that the non-default 
script subtags have to be enumerated in the registry or whether you can 
freely combine as needed.

>>   Whereas this W3C guide explicitly says you can only use
>> extended language subtags with certain languages, I see that it
>> explicitly says you can use a script subtag with any language when it's
>> not written in the script given for "suppress script".  And, as we see,
>> it even gives the examples of Russian "transcribed into the Latin script".
>>
>> So if you encounter "ru-Latn", you're stuck figuring out which
>> transliteration scheme was used (or whether the author just invented one).
>
> Yes, that's an interesting point; in many cases, there are ways to
> specify the transliteration scheme used:
>
> Type: variant
> Subtag: wadegile
> Description: Wade-Giles romanization
> Added: 2008-10-03
> Prefix: zh-Latn
>
> which specifies one particular romanization of Chinese. Use of variants
> is explained here:
>
> <http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-choosing-language-tags#xxxshortcomings>
>
> However, there are no such variants for Russian. If there are multiple
> latin transliteration schemes in use for Russian, it would be a good
> idea to register subtags for them.

Yes.  All 10 of them that Lou found in Wikipedia.

> To my mind, BCP 47 itself is actually quite hard to understand, but
> we've linked in the Guidelines to two W3C documents (including the one
> above) which really help to clarify the situation.

You know, when you sent that link, I recalled that we were going to add 
it to the Guidelines, but I don't see it at:

http://www.tei-c.org/release/doc/tei-p5-doc/en/html/ref-att.global.html

which is where I go to look for advice on @xml:lang.  Perhaps we could 
add the two W3C documents to ref-att.global.xml as well?

--Kevin