[OSM-talk] [HOT] Nametagging: Local script versus

[Jean-Marc Liotier]

andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> On 28 February 2011 21:40, Steve Doerr <steve.doerr at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 28/02/2011 16:55, Ed Avis wrote:
>>> Jean-Marc Liotier<jm<at>  liotier.org>  writes:
>>>
>>>> By the way, for latin script names, should we use int_name, name:en or
>>>> both ?
 >>>
>>> If the name is still in Arabic, but Arabic written with the Latin
>>> alphabet,  then name:ar at Latin would be correct.
 >>
>> Did you just make that up, or is this use of the @ symbol a pre-existing
>> standard?
> 
> The part after @ is the "modifier" in posix locales and is often used
> for script type, see for example
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/LocaleMapping

Citation from above link : "@modifiers that indicate a non-default 
script, e.g. uz_UZ at cyrillic, be_BY at latin". Reusing this standard sounds 
like a great idea to me - much more flexible than my earlier proposal of 
recycling int_name in this role.

Anyone else in favor of name:ar at latin for the romanized version of the 
local Arabic name ?