Yellowtailshark added a comment.
In T180345#7916094 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T180345#7916094>, @mxn wrote: > Is it technically correct to interpret the English name of Hani in ISO 15924 so literally? After all, chữ Nôm differs from chữ nho in terms of language usage and many specific characters, but the CJKV writing systems have been unified into a single subset of Unicode, including chữ Nôm. On the other hand, ISO 15924 does contain codes for typographic variants of scripts like Nastaliq Arabic (Aran) and Gaelic Latin (Latg). I think we can agree if it were explicit, it's a clear sign of intent and leaves little to misinterpretation. I just don't like getting ahead of the standards, but this is a minor point in any case. That Latin has variants shows that it is possible to distinguish chữ Nôm as its own variant, but equally true that chữ Nôm doesn't have a ISO 15924 code point of its own. But yes, with C933103's comment, I kinda see the argument for putting all Han orthography under the "Hani" code. I found this argument in favor of it from 2006 on a Hanja Wikipedia proposal <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Hanja#Language_Code_Issue> page. While there are constructions/compositions of Han characters into combinations that might only be intelligible to the Vietnamese literati of the time, it still follows the same rules of construction of Classical Chinese script in general. I'm studying the Dictionarium Annamiticum Lusitanum et Latinum <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionarium_Annamiticum_Lusitanum_et_Latinum>, and although Latinized Middle Vietnamese had b-with-flourish ꞗ <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B_with_flourish>, apex diacritic <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apex_(diacritic)>, and a few other conventions no longer in use in modern Vietnamese orthography, it doesn't mean it merits its own Latin variation code. If we look at an example classical text, Chinh Phụ Ngâm Khúc <http://nomfoundation.org/nom-project/Chinh-Phu-Ngam-Khuc/Chinh-Phu-Ngam-Khuc-Text>, which is written in Han script, and later translated into Nôm script, if I were to encode this and give a user a choice between Han and Nôm, it would seem to me that Han is 'lzh' (Hani is implied I suppose), and Nôm would be 'vi-Hani'. As long as there //is// a way to distinguish between the two texts, then I'm happy for it. In T180345#7916105 <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T180345#7916105>, @C933103 wrote: > But I think it is also not impossible to apply for another ISO 15924 code, given how Traditional Chinese and Simplified Chinese which have much less different from each others still received their individual code. If it ever happens, then we'll jump on that bandwagon. I think 'vi-Hani' is still a step in the right direction, compared to using 'vi-x-Q875344' for a rather currently pervasive usage among the Wikimedia projects. TASK DETAIL https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T180345 EMAIL PREFERENCES https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/ To: Yellowtailshark Cc: Yellowtailshark, Popolon, Esc3300, Nikki, Mahir256, Mbch331, Amire80, jhsoby, GerardM, mxn, Liuxinyu970226, Aklapper, revi, C933103, Astuthiodit_1, karapayneWMDE, Invadibot, maantietaja, ItamarWMDE, Akuckartz, Nandana, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, _jensen, rosalieper, Scott_WUaS, Wikidata-bugs, aude
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-bugs mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
