From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 01 20:12:25 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwpZY-0003K5-HX; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:12:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwpZX-0003K0-8g for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:12:23 -0400 Received: from pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.64]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FwpZW-0008Nn-1Z for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:12:23 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-4-81.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.4.81] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-knobcone.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1FwpZR-0002gF-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 01 Jul 2006 20:12:17 -0400 Message-ID: <003d01c69d6c$4618d860$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <000001c69c65$c1d37ad0$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] gen-art review and response... Date: Sat, 1 Jul 2006 17:12:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Addison Phillips" > To: "'LTRU Working Group'" > Cc: < Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:53 AM > Subject: [Ltru] gen-art review and response... ... > s2.1, para 3: s/Such ill-formed ranges/Any ranges that are not well-formed/ > > [Addison] I don't care for this edit. ... The first ("such ill-formed ranges") only refers to ranges that are ill-formed in some particular way. However, in the context in which the phrase appears, there's nothing to indicate what might be meant by "such", since ill-formed ranges are not previously discussed in the paragraph. Though I think the suggested edit is better, I'd be even happier with a simple "Ranges that are not well-formed". Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 02 16:37:25 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx8h2-0002Jn-R5; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:37:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx8h1-0002Ji-LR for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:37:23 -0400 Received: from lonsmimeo.rit.reuters.com ([192.165.213.23] helo=lonsmime03.rit.reuters.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx8h0-0000c9-8K for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 16:37:23 -0400 Received: from eupig2 (unverified [129.1.30.40]) by lonsmime03.rit.reuters.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.19) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 20:37:19 +0000 Received: from lonsmsxb01.emea.ime.reuters.com ([10.14.113.6]) by eupig2.dtc.lon.ime.reuters.com (PMDF V6.2-1x10 #31217) with ESMTP id <0J1S00EIJMM7AW@eupig2.dtc.lon.ime.reuters.com>; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 20:37:19 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LONSMSXM06.emea.ime.reuters.com ([10.14.113.23]) by lonsmsxb01.emea.ime.reuters.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.0); Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:37:19 +0100 Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:37:17 +0100 From: Misha Wolf To: Doug Ewell , LTRU Working Group Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Thread-Topic: New UN code elements for "Serbia" and "Montenegro" thread-index: AcadMmmtErjSwYNFREycSS++2fiYYgA5LDBg Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2006 20:37:19.0215 (UTC) FILETIME=[501CF7F0:01C69E17] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: e5ba305d0e64821bf3d8bc5d3bb07228 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] RE: New UN code elements for "Serbia" and "Montenegro" X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2000503668==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============2000503668== Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message VGhpcyBydWxlIHNlZW1zIHRvIGJlIGEgY2FuZGlkYXRlIGZvciBpbXByb3ZlbWVudCBpbiB0aGUg DQpuZXh0IGJhdGNoIG9mIHdvcmsuDQoNCk1pc2hhDQoNCg0KLS0tLS1PcmlnaW5hbCBNZXNzYWdl LS0tLS0NCkZyb206IGlldGYtbGFuZ3VhZ2VzLWJvdW5jZXNAYWx2ZXN0cmFuZC5ubyBbbWFpbHRv OmlldGYtbGFuZ3VhZ2VzLWJvdW5jZXNAYWx2ZXN0cmFuZC5ub10gT24gQmVoYWxmIE9mIERvdWcg RXdlbGwNClNlbnQ6IDAxIEp1bHkgMjAwNiAxODoxOA0KVG86IGlldGYtbGFuZ3VhZ2VzQGlhbmEu b3JnDQpTdWJqZWN0OiBOZXcgVU4gY29kZSBlbGVtZW50cyBmb3IgIlNlcmJpYSIgYW5kICJNb250 ZW5lZ3JvIg0KDQpUaGUgVU4gU3RhdGlzdGljcyBEaXZpc2lvbiBoYXMgYXNzaWduZWQgbmV3IDMt ZGlnaXQgbnVtZXJpYyBNLjQ5IGNvZGUgDQplbGVtZW50cyBmb3IgU2VyYmlhICg2ODgpIGFuZCBm b3IgTW9udGVuZWdybyAoNDk5KSwgYW5kIGhhcyBsaXN0ZWQgdGhlIA0KcHJldmlvdXNseSBhc3Np Z25lZCBjb2RlIGVsZW1lbnQgZm9yIFNlcmJpYSBhbmQgTW9udGVuZWdybyAoODkxKSB1bmRlciAN CnRoZSBoZWFkaW5nICJDb2RlcyBub3QgaW4gY3VycmVudCB1c2UuIg0KDQpSZWZlcmVuY2VzOg0K aHR0cDovL3Vuc3RhdHMudW4ub3JnL3Vuc2QvbWV0aG9kcy9tNDkvbTQ5YWxwaGEuaHRtDQpodHRw Oi8vdW5zdGF0cy51bi5vcmcvdW5zZC9tZXRob2RzL200OS9tNDljaGFuZy5odG0NCg0KVGhlIGZp cnN0IHBhcmFncmFwaCBvZiBTZWN0aW9uIDMuMyBvZiBkcmFmdC1yZWdpc3RyeSBzYXlzIHRoYXQg YXMgbmV3IA0KY29kZXMgYXJlIGFzc2lnbmVkIGluIChhbW9uZyBvdGhlcnMpIFVOIE0uNDksIHRo ZSBSZXZpZXdlciBNVVNUIGV2YWx1YXRlIA0KdGhlbSBmb3IgaW5jbHVzaW9uIGFzIG5ldyBzdWJ0 YWdzIGluIHRoZSBSZWdpc3RyeSwgYW5kIHN1Ym1pdCB0aGVtIGlmIA0KdGhlcmUgaXMgbm8gY29u ZmxpY3QuDQoNCkhvd2V2ZXIsIHNpbmNlIGl0IGlzIHdpZGVseSBleHBlY3RlZCB0aGF0IElTTyAz MTY2L01BIHdpbGwgc29vbiBhc3NpZ24gDQpuZXcgYWxwaGEtMiAoYW5kIGFscGhhLTMpIGNvZGUg ZWxlbWVudHMgZm9yIHRoZXNlIHR3byBjb3VudHJpZXMsIA0KY29ycmVzcG9uZGluZyB0byB0aGVz ZSBVTiBjb2RlIGVsZW1lbnRzLCBJIHN1Z2dlc3Qgd2UgZG8gTk9UIHJ1c2ggdG8gDQphZG9wdCB0 aGUgVU4gY29kZXMsIGJ1dCByYXRoZXIgd2FpdCBmb3IgdGhlIElTTyBjb2RlcyB0byBiZSBhbm5v dW5jZWQuDQoNCi0tDQpEb3VnIEV3ZWxsDQpGdWxsZXJ0b24sIENhbGlmb3JuaWEsIFVTQQ0KaHR0 cDovL3VzZXJzLmFkZWxwaGlhLm5ldC9+ZGV3ZWxsLw0KDQoNCl9fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fDQpJZXRmLWxhbmd1YWdlcyBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QN CklldGYtbGFuZ3VhZ2VzQGFsdmVzdHJhbmQubm8NCmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuYWx2ZXN0cmFuZC5uby9t YWlsbWFuL2xpc3RpbmZvL2lldGYtbGFuZ3VhZ2VzDQoNCg0KVG8gZmluZCBvdXQgbW9yZSBhYm91 dCBSZXV0ZXJzIHZpc2l0IHd3dy5hYm91dC5yZXV0ZXJzLmNvbQ0KDQpBbnkgdmlld3MgZXhwcmVz c2VkIGluIHRoaXMgbWVzc2FnZSBhcmUgdGhvc2Ugb2YgdGhlIGluZGl2aWR1YWwgc2VuZGVyLCBl eGNlcHQgd2hlcmUgdGhlIHNlbmRlciBzcGVjaWZpY2FsbHkgc3RhdGVzIHRoZW0gdG8gYmUgdGhl IHZpZXdzIG9mIFJldXRlcnMgTHRkLg0KDQo= --===============2000503668== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============2000503668==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 02 17:54:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx9tL-0002Fq-GF; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:54:11 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx9tK-0001ty-Po for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:54:10 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx9pp-0006my-U5 for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:50:35 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060702215032.VEVM28449.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 17:50:32 -0400 Message-ID: <004b01c69e21$86d986f0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Sun, 2 Jul 2006 14:50:24 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69 Cc: Misha Wolf Subject: [Ltru] Re: New UN code elements for "Serbia" and "Montenegro" X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Misha Wolf wrote: > This rule seems to be a candidate for improvement in the next batch of > work. I agree. The basic premise of ISO 3166 is that they assign alphabetic code elements that correspond to UN numeric code elements. In other words, it is expected that UN will change their code list before ISO does. We prefer to assign region subtags based on ISO code elements rather than UN, yet Section 3.1 says the Reviewer is supposed to act upon changes to the UN code list just like the others. I suggest the process should be something like this: when an addition is made to the UN list of countries and country-like entities. the Reviewer (with assistance as necessary) should investigate whether ISO 3166/MA plans to assign a corresponding alpha-2 code element, and if so, should NOT automatically add a subtag based on the UN code element, but should wait (for a period not to exceed N months) until ISO does its job. The value N may be subject to some discussion. Apparently 6 months is not uncommon, and the ISO code elements for Guernsey, Jersey, and Isle of Man reportedly took 8 months after being proposed because they went to a second vote. (Of course, this does not count the time during which the numeric UN codes existed but ISO did not add corresponding alpha codes, as they say they do.) I would certainly hope ISO would not take 6 or more months to assign code elements for Serbia and for Montenegro, but even if they do, it would still be better to wait for "SP" and "ME" (or whatever the ISO code elements will be) than to assign region subtags "688" for Serbia and "499" for Montenegro and then, when ISO issues its alpha codes, to introduce duplicate alpha subtags that are deprecated in favor of the numeric ones. I'm sure nobody wants to see that. None of this applies to the supra-national UN code elements, such as "035" for South-Eastern Asia. Clearly, as changes are made to that code list, they should be reflected promptly in the Registry, as draft-registry already states. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 02 17:59:32 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx9yW-0003uf-4j; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:59:32 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx9yU-0003uY-MB for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:59:30 -0400 Received: from lonsmimeo.rit.reuters.com ([192.165.213.23] helo=lonsmime03.rit.reuters.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fx9yT-00078d-B6 for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 17:59:30 -0400 Received: from eupig2 (unverified [129.1.30.40]) by lonsmime03.rit.reuters.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.19) with ESMTP id ; Sun, 2 Jul 2006 21:59:26 +0000 Received: from LONSMSXB02.emea.ime.reuters.com ([10.14.113.7]) by eupig2.dtc.lon.ime.reuters.com (PMDF V6.2-1x10 #31217) with ESMTP id <0J1S008MHQF29T@eupig2.dtc.lon.ime.reuters.com>; Sun, 02 Jul 2006 21:59:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from LONSMSXM06.emea.ime.reuters.com ([10.14.113.23]) by LONSMSXB02.emea.ime.reuters.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC (6.0.3790.0); Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:59:26 +0100 Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 22:59:24 +0100 From: Misha Wolf To: Doug Ewell , LTRU Working Group Message-id: MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Thread-Topic: New UN code elements for "Serbia" and "Montenegro" thread-index: AcaeIY8yG6Y15SYZTiGRdx5RAsOkuAAALR3A Content-class: urn:content-classes:message X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 02 Jul 2006 21:59:26.0507 (UTC) FILETIME=[C9020FB0:01C69E22] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] RE: New UN code elements for "Serbia" and "Montenegro" X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1214687436==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============1214687436== Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: base64 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message RG91ZyB3cm90ZToNCg0KPiBJIHN1Z2dlc3QgdGhlIHByb2Nlc3Mgc2hvdWxkIGJlIHNvbWV0aGlu ZyBsaWtlIHRoaXM6IA0KPiB3aGVuIGFuIGFkZGl0aW9uIGlzIG1hZGUgdG8gdGhlIFVOIGxpc3Qg b2YgY291bnRyaWVzIGFuZCANCj4gY291bnRyeS1saWtlIGVudGl0aWVzIFsuLi5dDQoNCkkgYWdy ZWUsIHRob3VnaCB0aGUgbGVuZ3RoIG9mIHRoZSB3YWl0aW5nIHBlcmlvZCBmb3IgY291bnRyeSAN CmFscGhhIGNvZGVzIG11c3QgYmUgdG8gc29tZSBleHRlbnQgZGlzY3JldGlvbmFyeSBhcyB3ZSB3 b3VsZCANCm5vdCB3YW50IHNvbWUgZHJhd24gb3V0IHR1c3NsZSBiZXR3ZWVuLCBlZywgSVNPIGFu ZCBTZXJiaWEsIA0KdG8gY2F1c2UgdXMgdG8gbWFrZSB0aGUgd3JvbmcgYWxsb2NhdGlvbi4NCg0K TWlzaGENCg0KDQpUbyBmaW5kIG91dCBtb3JlIGFib3V0IFJldXRlcnMgdmlzaXQgd3d3LmFib3V0 LnJldXRlcnMuY29tDQoNCkFueSB2aWV3cyBleHByZXNzZWQgaW4gdGhpcyBtZXNzYWdlIGFyZSB0 aG9zZSBvZiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBzZW5kZXIsIGV4Y2VwdCB3aGVyZSB0aGUgc2VuZGVyIHNw ZWNpZmljYWxseSBzdGF0ZXMgdGhlbSB0byBiZSB0aGUgdmlld3Mgb2YgUmV1dGVycyBMdGQuDQoN Cg== --===============1214687436== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1214687436==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 03 04:28:45 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJnR-0000Ee-Gy; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:28:45 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJbD-0005tu-9d for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:16:07 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJbD-00034w-80 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:16:07 -0400 Received: from mtagate5.de.ibm.com ([195.212.29.154]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxJSU-0008Us-41 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:07:07 -0400 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate5.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6386uoO128880 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:06:57 GMT Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.213]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k6389akN092698 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:09:36 +0200 Received: from d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k6386uIP003471 for ; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:06:56 +0200 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d12av03.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k6386tQs003456; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:06:55 +0200 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-217-210.de.ibm.com [9.146.217.210]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id KAA65308; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 10:06:54 +0200 Message-ID: <44A8D01D.1070506@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 10:06:53 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Addison Phillips References: <000101c69c66$899ca6e0$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <000101c69c66$899ca6e0$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -1.2 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 03 Jul 2006 04:28:44 -0400 Cc: Elwyn Davies , 'LTRU Working Group' Subject: [Ltru] Re: Gen-art review of draft-matching (Brian's comments) X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Actually the question was based on my slight misunderstanding of Elwyn's review comments. But I take it that you're saying the WG really meant what it wrote, which is the point. > ...the WG discovered that none of the algorithms we ended up with > in this document needed such a syntax. Therefore we didn't document one. It's possible that a sentence to this effect would prevent future readers asking themselves Elwyn's question, but I won't insist. Brian Addison Phillips wrote: > Brian Carpenter asked Mark and I privately: > > -- > I'd really like to have the authors' and shepherds' comments > on section 2.2 before casting my ballot on this. Did the WG consciously > decide that en-*-*-*-en was valid, and distinct from > en-*-*-en? > -- > > en-*-*-*-en is not functionally distinct from "en-*-*-en" (or en-*-en, en-en, or en-en-*, for that matter). > > It is possible to construct a language range syntax that uses RFC 3066bis's syntax. In such a syntax the position and number of wildcards would be significant. However, the WG discovered that none of the algorithms we ended up with in this document needed such a syntax. Therefore we didn't document one. > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 03 11:40:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxQXW-0003bV-Rd; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:40:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxQXV-0003bQ-SS for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:40:45 -0400 Received: from mail2.sharplabs.com ([216.65.151.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxQXU-00067u-IJ for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 11:40:45 -0400 Received: from admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com (admsrvnt02 [172.29.225.253]) by mail2.sharplabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD1171E13A1; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:40:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: by admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:40:41 -0700 Message-ID: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE5C@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> From: "McDonald, Ira" To: 'Randy Presuhn' , LTRU Working Group Subject: RE: [Ltru] gen-art review and response... Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 08:40:39 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org +1 Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] > Sent: Saturday, July 01, 2006 8:13 PM > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: Re: [Ltru] gen-art review and response... > > > Hi - > > > From: "Addison Phillips" > > To: "'LTRU Working Group'" > > Cc: > < Sent: Friday, June 30, 2006 9:53 AM > > Subject: [Ltru] gen-art review and response... > ... > > s2.1, para 3: s/Such ill-formed ranges/Any ranges that are > not well-formed/ > > > > [Addison] I don't care for this edit. > ... > > The first ("such ill-formed ranges") only refers to ranges > that are ill-formed > in some particular way. However, in the context in which the > phrase appears, > there's nothing to indicate what might be meant by "such", > since ill-formed > ranges are not previously discussed in the paragraph. Though > I think the > suggested edit is better, I'd be even happier with a simple > "Ranges that are > not well-formed". > > Randy > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.8/380 - Release Date: 6/30/2006 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 03 21:57:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxaAl-0005G2-Gc; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:57:55 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxZig-0008Vu-IG; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:28:54 -0400 Received: from pop-tawny.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.67]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxZex-0003Oz-QD; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:25:04 -0400 Received: from h-68-166-188-226.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.166.188.226] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-tawny.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1FxZeu-0004Hs-00; Mon, 03 Jul 2006 21:25:00 -0400 Message-ID: <002201c69f08$c536de60$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: , "Brian Carpenter" References: Date: Mon, 3 Jul 2006 18:25:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: LTRU Working Group Subject: [Ltru] Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ltru-matching X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "Brian Carpenter" > To: > Cc: > Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 1:11 AM > Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ltru-matching > > Discuss: > (from Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies) > > Assuming we are supposed to be using RFC4234 conventions throughout: > s2, para 3: s/%2A/%x2A/ > s3.3.2, para 2 (Item 1.): s/%2D/%x2D/ > The need for this correction has already been noted (on June 30) on the ltru WG mailing list in response to Elwyn's comments. No one has disagreed. Our AD (Ted) has indicated that an RFC editor note would be sufficient for making this correction before publication. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 04 05:30:16 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxhEV-00023u-Ph; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 05:30:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxfK2-0003Y3-9Q; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:27:50 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxfK2-0004Mn-7n; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:27:50 -0400 Received: from mtagate6.uk.ibm.com ([195.212.29.139]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FxfIL-0000MD-EK; Tue, 04 Jul 2006 03:26:06 -0400 Received: from d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.185]) by mtagate6.uk.ibm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k647Q2QR089498 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 07:26:02 GMT Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.216]) by d06nrmr1407.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.6/NCO/VER7.0) with ESMTP id k647RTxm115170 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:27:29 +0100 Received: from d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k647Q2wU009082; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:26:02 +0100 Received: from sihl.zurich.ibm.com (sihl.zurich.ibm.com [9.4.16.232]) by d06av04.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k647Q1o8009074; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 08:26:01 +0100 Received: from zurich.ibm.com (sig-9-146-221-83.de.ibm.com [9.146.221.83]) by sihl.zurich.ibm.com (AIX4.3/8.9.3p2/8.9.3) with ESMTP id JAA68344; Tue, 4 Jul 2006 09:26:00 +0200 Message-ID: <44AA1807.8020807@zurich.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 09:25:59 +0200 From: Brian E Carpenter Organization: IBM User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113 X-Accept-Language: en, fr, de MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Randy Presuhn References: <002201c69f08$c536de60$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> In-Reply-To: <002201c69f08$c536de60$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 04 Jul 2006 05:30:14 -0400 Cc: LTRU Working Group , iesg@ietf.org Subject: [Ltru] Re: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ltru-matching X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sure, Randy, I will clear my DISCUSS when the RFC Editor note is in the tracker. Brian Randy Presuhn wrote: > Hi - > > >>From: "Brian Carpenter" >>To: >>Cc: >>Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 1:11 AM >>Subject: DISCUSS: draft-ietf-ltru-matching >> >>Discuss: >>(from Gen-ART review by Elwyn Davies) >> >>Assuming we are supposed to be using RFC4234 conventions throughout: >>s2, para 3: s/%2A/%x2A/ >>s3.3.2, para 2 (Item 1.): s/%2D/%x2D/ >> > > > The need for this correction has already been noted (on June 30) on the > ltru WG mailing list in response to Elwyn's comments. No one has > disagreed. Our AD (Ted) has indicated that an RFC editor note would > be sufficient for making this correction before publication. > > Randy > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 05 18:19:29 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyFiS-0008Gj-Sr; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:19:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyFiR-0008Ge-DN for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:19:27 -0400 Received: from outbound-kan.frontbridge.com ([63.161.60.23] helo=outbound2-kan-R.bigfish.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyFiQ-0003wb-6B for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:19:27 -0400 Received: from outbound2-kan.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound2-kan-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C5E66F1B7E for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail43-kan-R.bigfish.com (unknown [172.18.7.1]) by outbound2-kan.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 902AA6F0E38 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail43-kan.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail43-kan-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 847F0405D16 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:19:25 +0000 (UTC) X-BigFish: VP Received: by mail43-kan (MessageSwitch) id 1152137965423464_6805; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:19:25 +0000 (UCT) Received: from USCCIMTA02.spe.sony.com (unknown [64.14.251.196]) (using SSLv3 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail43-kan.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A5E0405D01 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 22:19:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from usmail04.spe.sony.com ([43.130.148.27]) by USCCIMTA02.spe.sony.com (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.5) with ESMTP id 2006070515213381-586325 ; Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:21:33 -0700 To: "LTRU Working Group" Subject: Fw: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.4 March 27, 2005 Message-ID: From: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 15:18:29 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on USMAIL04/SVR/SPE(Release 6.5.4FP1|June 19, 2005) at 07/05/2006 15:18:29, Serialize complete at 07/05/2006 15:18:29, Itemize by SMTP Server on USCCiMTA02/SVR/SPE(Release 6.5.5|November 30, 2005) at 07/05/2006 03:21:33 PM, Serialize by Router on USCCiMTA02/SVR/SPE(Release 6.5.5|November 30, 2005) at 07/05/2006 03:21:36 PM, Serialize complete at 07/05/2006 03:21:36 PM X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ce33913643759a19ac4c14fdbab27ca9 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1043332242==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org This is a multipart message in MIME format. --===============1043332242== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 007A9F24882571A2_=" This is a multipart message in MIME format. --=_alternative 007A9F24882571A2_= Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Yes, Debbie. I'm looking at ISO 11179 right now internally and with other external projects. It's in my best interest to look at its application from as many angles as possible. Happy to help, as you I think you know.... Regards, Karen Broome Metadata Systems Designer Sony Pictures Entertainment 310.244.4384 "Debbie Garside" 06/30/2006 12:42 PM To "'Debbie Garside'" , cc "'Doug Ewell'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject RE: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179 Hi Karen I have looked at this in a little more detail now and you are correct if we were to consider "Strictly Conforming" to ISO 11179. However, having completed a preliminary test map from the Registry (and associated documentation within the RFC) to Clause 5 of part 3 (Basic Attributes) as well as the requirements of part 6 (as outlined in my previous mail), I think Conformance Level 1 (part 3 clause 6) could be achieved without too much effort. That said, I would really want to study this in more detail, my investigations are still very much preliminary - I would like to do a true implementation to be absolutely sure. If the WG decide to put investigation of implications and benefits of conformity with ISO 11179 for the Registry within the new Charter I would be happy to work with you on this if you have time. Best regards Debbie Garside From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk] Sent: 28 June 2006 08:44 To: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group' Subject: RE: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179 Hi Karen Thanks for your input. I need to do a little more reading before I respond so it may be a few days :-) I think there are two ways of looking at 11179: 1. As a standard to assist in the design of a Meta-data Registry 2. As a standard to apply to an existing Meta-Data registry. I have been looking at what is as a bare minimum absolutely necessary in order to apply ISO 11179 to the LTRU Registry. I have read the whole standard but I need to do further depth reading to see what is required for the Registry to be conformant. There are one or two things that you have mentioned that do not fit with my interpretation but I would not want to say more until I have studied it further. best regards Debbie From: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com [mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com] Sent: 28 June 2006 01:06 To: Debbie Garside Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group' Subject: Re: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179 Debbie, Did you review all of ISO 11179 or just 11179-6? There is a lot more to ISO 11179 than just the administrative practices (-6) and the previous parts discuss a hierarchical metadata model not mentioned in your review below. I think you're confusing the terms "value" and "representation" and the other sections provide clarity on this. The top of the hierarchy is the Data Concept, which is an abstract description independent of its representation -- a pure semantic layer. The hierarchy, as I understand it, would be something like this: Data Concept Language Code: A standardized code used to identify a particular language or dialect. Data Elements [Data Concept + Representation Class] related to "Language Code" data concept = 1. ISO 639-1 Language Code: A two-letter code assigned by the ISO 639-1 standard to identify a particular language. 2. ISO 639-2/B Language Code 3. ISO 639-2/T Language Code 4. ISO 639-3 Language Code 5. ISO 639-6 Language Code Value Domain Each data element in this case has a "Value Domain" and the Value Domain contains the individual values such as "en-US". ... For the Language Code data concept, the ISO 11179 structure seems relevant and useful. But when we look at some of the other concepts, it seems less useful and perhaps problematic: Data Concept = Script Code Data Element = ISO 15924 Script Code Data Concept = Country Code Data Element = ISO 3166 Country Code Note that "Description" or even "Subtag Description" is too vague by ISO 11179 rules (subjective judgment, but there are a lot of examples that support this view) and I think you would need to break these out as: 1. En-US Language Name 2. Fr-FR Language Name 3. En-US Script Name 4. En-US Country Name etc. These are unique data elements relating to several data concepts, so the current model with its "Description" field would need serious revision to be compliant, I think. I'm not opposed to further discussion of this moving forward. I only question how valuable this is for a standard that has so few data elements. It is a good thing that you're familiar with the section of the standard I've spent the least time reviewing. :) Best regards, Karen Broome Sony Pictures Entertainment "Debbie Garside" 06/27/2006 01:22 AM To "'LTRU Working Group'" cc 'Doug Ewell' Subject [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179 Findings of a preliminary investigation into the application of ISO 11179 to the RFC3066bis Registry Cost Initial investigations suggest that ISO 11179 can be applied to the Registry at a base level for very little cost. The main cost is in mapping the ISO 11179 terminology to the existing Registry terminology and a number of additional data elements would be required. The Registry already incorporates a system of metadata elements that are consistent with the model presented within ISO 11179. In particular the value of the following aspects of ISO 11179-6 should be investigated: Identification The attributes registration authority identifier (RAI), data identifier (DI), and version identifier (VI) constitute the international registration data identifier (IRDI). At least one IRDI is required for an administered item. Data identifiers are assigned by a Registration Authority; data identifiers shall be unique within the domain of a Registration Authority. Requirements for a Registration Authority, and a discussion of the IRDI, appear in ISO/IEC 11179-6. As each Registration Authority may determine its own DI assignment scheme, there is no guarantee that the DI by itself will uniquely identify an administered item. For example, if two authorities both use sequential 6-digit numbers, there may be two administered items with the same DI's; however, the administered items will almost certainly not be the same. If one administered item appears in two registers, it will have two DI's. Therefore, both the DI and the RAI are necessary for identification of an administered item. If particular attributes of an administered item change, then a new version of the administered item shall be created and registered. The registrar shall determine these attributes. In such a case, a VI is required to complete the unique identification of an administered item. For further guidance, see ISO/IEC 11179-6. An IRDI can serve as a key when exchanging data among information systems, organizations, or other parties who wish to share a specific administered item, but might not utilize the same names or contexts. ISO/IEC 11179 does not specify the format or content of a unique DI. The IETF (or LTRU) would need to apply for an International Code Designator (ICD) - a four integer code; this coupled with the organization name as well as a "department" identifier (OPI) becomes the IRDI e.g. 1234.IETF.LTRU. The ICD would be registered by the RA of ISO/IEC 6523 Organization Codes as Registration Authority Identifier which is currently BSI. Implications for the LTRU Registry The DI (or UI - Unique Identifier) cannot be the Subtag as there are already conflicting Subtags within the registry (e.g. cy/CY). It is more preferable that the unique identifier be the chosen language/country/script name (please note, this is not the preferred name). This would fit with the current ISO 639-3, -5 and -6 models and open the Registry to adoption by meta-data knowledge grids. (I will take a good look at the naming conventions within ISO 3166-1 at a later date but prior to publication of FDIS 3166-1). Anomalies within ISO naming conventions of standards issued prior to the adoption of ISO 11179 can be dealt with on a case by case basis via set rules. The Subtag would become a "Representation" with the name being the unique "Data Identifier". This would involve having a "Primary Description" which would form the DI. In reviewing the "Required Metadata Attributes" for a "Preferred Standard" Status administered item, preliminary investigations reveal no serious additional requirements other than those already mentioned here. Some manipulation and interpretation of registry data and standard mandatory requirements would be required but no difficulties are envisaged. I would refer the WG to ISO/IEC 11179-6:2005(E); Table B-8 (p.34) Benefits The ISO 11179 model allows for there being conflicting codes between different meta-data registries in conformity with ISO 11179; that is part of the conceptual model. ("in conformity with" is correct - there are essential parts of the standard). In essence, the ISO 11179 meta-model supports linkage to other ISO 11179 conformant meta-data registries thus facilitating data exchange/interchange whilst giving the LTRU Registry ownership of the data elements contained therein - they become LTRU elements giving room for manoeuvre should ISO get it wrong. This will make language tags more meaningful in the future. The key word here is "linkage". ISO 11179 conformant meta-data registries facilitate the creation of knowledge grids, grid computing and the semantic web! Conclusion At first glance the cost/value ratio favours ISO 11179; there appears to be very little cost yet the true benefits of future interoperability and data exchange are unknown. It is recommended that further investigation be conducted before application of ISO 11179 can be discussed at WG level. Further benefits with regard to data interchange should be explored. It is further recommended that the "investigation into application of ISO 11179 Meta Data Registries to the Registry and its registration procedures be conducted by nominated members of the WG with a view to application" be added to the new LTRU Charter. Best regards Debbie Garside _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --=_alternative 007A9F24882571A2_= Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Yes, Debbie. I'm looking at  ISO 11179 right now internally and with other external projects.  It's in my best interest to look at its application from as many angles as possible.

Happy to help, as you I think you know....

Regards,

Karen Broome
Metadata Systems Designer
Sony Pictures Entertainment
310.244.4384


"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>

06/30/2006 12:42 PM

To
"'Debbie Garside'" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>, <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
cc
"'Doug Ewell'" <dewell@adelphia.net>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject
RE: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179





Hi Karen
 
I have looked at this in a little more detail now and you are correct if we were to consider "Strictly Conforming" to ISO 11179.
 
However, having completed a preliminary test map from the Registry (and associated documentation within the RFC) to Clause 5 of part 3 (Basic Attributes) as well as the requirements of part 6 (as outlined in my previous mail), I think Conformance Level 1 (part 3 clause 6) could be achieved without too much effort.
 
That said, I would really want to study this in more detail, my investigations are still very much preliminary -  I would like to do a true implementation to be absolutely sure.
 
If the WG decide to put investigation of implications and benefits of conformity with ISO 11179 for the Registry within the new Charter I would be happy to work with you on this if you have time.
 
Best regards
 
Debbie Garside

From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk]
Sent: 28 June 2006 08:44
To: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com
Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179
Hi Karen
 
Thanks for your input.  I need to do a little more reading before I respond so it may be a few days :-)
 
I think there are two ways of looking at 11179: 1. As a standard to assist in the design of a Meta-data Registry 2. As a standard to apply to an existing Meta-Data registry.
 
I have been looking at what is as a bare minimum absolutely necessary in order to apply ISO 11179 to the LTRU Registry.  I have read the whole standard but I need to do further depth reading to see what is required for the Registry to be conformant.
 
There are one or two things that you have mentioned that do not fit with my interpretation but I would not want to say more until I have studied it further.
 
best regards
 
Debbie
 

From: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com [mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com]
Sent: 28 June 2006 01:06
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179

Debbie,

Did you review all of ISO 11179 or just 11179-6?

There is a lot more to ISO 11179 than just the administrative practices (-6) and the previous parts discuss a hierarchical metadata model not mentioned in your review below. I think you're confusing the terms "value" and "representation" and the other sections provide clarity on this.  The top of the hierarchy is the Data Concept, which is an abstract description independent of its representation -- a pure semantic layer.

The hierarchy, as I understand it, would be something like this:

Data Concept
       Language Code: A standardized code used to identify a particular language or dialect.

Data Elements [Data Concept + Representation Class] related to "Language Code" data concept =
1.        ISO 639-1 Language Code:  A two-letter code assigned by the ISO 639-1 standard to identify a particular language.
2.        ISO 639-2/B Language Code
3.        ISO 639-2/T Language Code
4.        ISO 639-3 Language Code
5.        ISO 639-6 Language Code

Value Domain
       Each data element in this case has a "Value Domain" and the Value Domain contains the individual values such as "en-US".

...

For the Language Code data concept, the ISO 11179 structure seems relevant and useful. But when we look at some of the other concepts, it seems less useful and perhaps problematic:

Data Concept = Script Code
Data Element = ISO 15924 Script Code

Data Concept = Country Code
Data Element = ISO 3166 Country Code

Note that "Description" or even "Subtag Description" is too vague by ISO 11179 rules (subjective judgment, but there are a lot of examples that support this view) and I think you would need to break these out as:
1.        En-US Language Name
2.        Fr-FR Language Name
3.        En-US Script Name
4.        En-US Country Name
etc.

These are unique data elements relating to several data concepts, so the current model with its "Description" field would need serious revision to be compliant, I think.

I'm not opposed to further discussion of this moving forward. I only question how valuable this is for a standard that has so few data elements. It is a good thing that you're familiar with the section of the standard I've spent the least time reviewing.  :)

Best regards,

Karen Broome
Sony Pictures Entertainment
"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>

06/27/2006 01:22 AM


To
"'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
cc
'Doug Ewell' <dewell@adelphia.net>
Subject
[Ltru] Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179







Findings of a preliminary investigation into the application of ISO 11179 to
the RFC3066bis Registry

Cost
Initial investigations suggest that ISO 11179 can be applied to the Registry
at a base level for very little cost.  The main cost is in mapping the ISO
11179 terminology to the existing Registry terminology and a number of
additional data elements would be required.  The Registry already
incorporates a system of metadata elements that are consistent with the
model presented within ISO 11179.  

In particular the value of the following aspects of ISO 11179-6 should be
investigated:

Identification
The attributes registration authority identifier (RAI), data identifier
(DI), and version identifier (VI) constitute the international registration
data identifier (IRDI). At least one IRDI is required for an administered
item.

Data identifiers are assigned by a Registration Authority; data identifiers
shall be unique within the domain of a Registration Authority.

Requirements for a Registration Authority, and a discussion of the IRDI,
appear in ISO/IEC 11179-6.

As each Registration Authority may determine its own DI assignment scheme,
there is no guarantee that the DI by itself will uniquely identify an
administered item. For example, if two authorities both use sequential
6-digit numbers, there may be two administered items with the same DI's;
however, the administered items will almost certainly not be the same.

If one administered item appears in two registers, it will have two DI's.
Therefore, both the DI and the RAI are necessary for identification of an
administered item.

If particular attributes of an administered item change, then a new version
of the administered item shall be created and registered. The registrar
shall determine these attributes. In such a case, a VI is required to
complete the unique identification of an administered item.

For further guidance, see ISO/IEC 11179-6.

An IRDI can serve as a key when exchanging data among information systems,
organizations, or other parties who wish to share a specific administered
item, but might not utilize the same names or contexts.

ISO/IEC 11179 does not specify the format or content of a unique DI.

The IETF (or LTRU) would need to apply for an International Code Designator
(ICD) - a four integer code; this coupled with the organization name as well
as a "department" identifier (OPI) becomes the IRDI e.g. 1234.IETF.LTRU.
The ICD would be registered by the RA of ISO/IEC 6523 Organization Codes as
Registration Authority Identifier which is currently BSI.  

Implications for the LTRU Registry
The DI (or UI - Unique Identifier) cannot be the Subtag as there are already
conflicting Subtags within the registry (e.g. cy/CY).  It is more preferable
that the unique identifier be the chosen language/country/script name
(please note, this is not the preferred name).  This would fit with the
current ISO 639-3, -5 and -6 models and open the Registry to adoption by
meta-data knowledge grids. (I will take a good look at the naming
conventions within ISO 3166-1 at a later date but prior to publication of
FDIS 3166-1).  

Anomalies within ISO naming conventions of standards issued prior to the
adoption of ISO 11179 can be dealt with on a case by case basis via set
rules.  

The Subtag would become a "Representation" with the name being the unique
"Data Identifier". This would involve having a "Primary Description" which
would form the DI.

In reviewing the "Required Metadata Attributes" for a "Preferred Standard"
Status administered item, preliminary investigations reveal no serious
additional requirements other than those already mentioned here. Some
manipulation and interpretation of registry data and standard mandatory
requirements would be required but no difficulties are envisaged. I would
refer the WG to ISO/IEC 11179-6:2005(E); Table B-8 (p.34)

Benefits
The ISO 11179 model allows for there being conflicting codes between
different meta-data registries in conformity with ISO 11179; that is part of
the conceptual model.  ("in conformity with" is correct - there are
essential parts of the standard).

In essence, the ISO 11179 meta-model supports linkage to other ISO 11179
conformant meta-data registries thus facilitating data exchange/interchange
whilst giving the LTRU Registry ownership of the data elements contained
therein - they become LTRU elements giving room for manoeuvre should ISO get
it wrong.

This will make language tags more meaningful in the future.  The key word
here is "linkage".  ISO 11179 conformant meta-data registries facilitate the
creation of knowledge grids, grid computing and the semantic web!

Conclusion
At first glance the cost/value ratio favours ISO 11179; there appears to be
very little cost yet the true benefits of future interoperability and data
exchange are unknown.  

It is recommended that further investigation be conducted before application
of ISO 11179 can be discussed at WG level.

Further benefits with regard to data interchange should be explored.

It is further recommended that the "investigation into application of ISO
11179 Meta Data Registries to the Registry and its registration procedures
be conducted by nominated members of the WG with a view to application" be
added to the new LTRU Charter.  

Best regards


Debbie Garside



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
--=_alternative 007A9F24882571A2_=-- --===============1043332242== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1043332242==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 06 13:29:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyXff-0005Vv-1J; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:47 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyXfc-0005SI-VG for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:44 -0400 Received: from pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.72]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyXfa-0006a2-Lg for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:44 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-4-139.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.4.139] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-sarus.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1FyXfZ-0002gg-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:29:42 -0400 Message-ID: <001201c6a121$e1c1b940$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:30:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 25620135586de10c627e3628c432b04a Subject: [Ltru] Charter - sign(ed) language tag construction ? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - As a technical contributor... Would it make sense to add material on how tagging for sign(ed) languages to the 3066ter effort being proposed? If so, could Peter's message be distilled down to a high-level sentence for the charter discussion? Randy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Constable" To: "IETF Languages Discussion" Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:22 AM Subject: RE: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed" I had an hour conversation today with an SIL linguist that has been assisting teams working on sign language projects for a number of years. We discussed various things, including the phenomenon of "signed-spoken-lang-X" varieties. In thinking about how to construct tags for these languages, the crucial question in my mind is this (using "signed English" in the US as an example): Is signed English 1) basically English expressed in a different modality, 2) basically ASL with some kind of modification or qualification -- e.g. a dialect or register, or 3) a pidgin of English and ASL? Whichever it is, we should tag it accordingly (and if three, then possibly code as though it were a distinct language). I was thinking we might use a subtag "-signed" based on the assumption that (1) was applicable. I know understand that these language varieties typically fall into (2), though perhaps sometimes into (3); generally these are probably best thought of as registers of the relevant signed language. They typically use phonology and lexica from the sign language and impose elements of the syntax (possibly including morphology) of the spoken language. Thus, here's my thoughts on a good approach to tagging signed languages: - We treat "sgn" as though it were a macrolanguage. (My contact said that really wasn't that much of a stretch.) - We use ISO 639-3 IDs as extlang subtags together with a primary subtag of "sgn"; e.g., "sgn-ase" for ASL. All signed languages (SLs proper, not the Signed English cases) use tags constructed this way. - We generally treat varieties like Signed English as registers of the signed language they are associated with. Thus, the tag is formed by adding a variant subtag to the tag for the sign language. Because there can be multiple varieties for a given sign language/spoken language combination, registered variant subtags provide the necessary level of flexibility. E.g. something like "sgn-ase-enexact" "sng-ase-enexact2" for SEE and SEE2; and "sgn-ase-esbaja" for the signed Spanish spoken in southern Baja California (which is based on ASL). - For cases of signed-spoken-lang-X that are pidgins, we treat these based on whatever general principles we adopt for pidgins. (I'm not sure at the moment what that should be; the problem with pidgins is that they are transitional and not yet stable -- they may stabilize as a creole or they may continue to mutate or they may disappear.) This should give generally good results for matching algorithms. Having "sgn" at the start immediately sets apart the modality, which will generally trump any other distinction in importance to the user. A request for "sgn-ase" will return results that include (the hypothetical) "sgn-ase-enexact" and "sgn-ase-esbaja", which is likely to be reasonable: an ASL speaker is going to recognize all or nearly all of the lexical items in either case and so will have about as much problem in comprehension as we'd expect from dialect or register differences. This is a preliminary take. I'm know my understanding is still limited, and that are likely to be several parts of what I've outlined that need work and further discussion. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ietf-languages mailing list Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 06 13:55:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyY4b-0004SE-RQ; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:55:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyY4a-0004Rz-PA for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:55:32 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyY4Y-0000Pe-ID for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:55:32 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FyY4X-000543-EJ; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:55:29 -0400 Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 13:55:29 -0400 To: Randy Presuhn Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter - sign(ed) language tag construction ? Message-ID: <20060706175529.GD16406@ccil.org> References: <001201c6a121$e1c1b940$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001201c6a121$e1c1b940$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Randy Presuhn scripsit: > Would it make sense to add material on how tagging for sign(ed) > languages to the 3066ter effort being proposed? If so, could > Peter's message be distilled down to a high-level sentence for > the charter discussion? Here's my first try: The working group is also expected to design a suitable mechanism for the tagging of sign languages and signed spoken languages. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org At times of peril or dubitation, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Perform swift circular ambulation, With loud and high-pitched ululation. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 06 14:02:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyYAw-0004vk-Hv; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:02:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyYAv-0004vf-Gn for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:02:05 -0400 Received: from mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FyYAu-0000em-5t for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2006 14:02:05 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k66I1h0d096381; Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:01:43 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:x-mimeole:thread-index:in-reply-to; b=x21i9YY8CnevLD3x27H3ob+iMBJjbk5CsFUWeW6wPQEuTjlfNHuiv7VBNxmw7jWX From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Randy Presuhn'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter - sign(ed) language tag construction ? Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 11:01:44 -0700 Message-ID: <001801c6a126$3e02adf0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcahIcp/+2pFiKqZQOy15cnYjg3/EQAAU+5g In-Reply-To: <001201c6a121$e1c1b940$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: c54bc2f42d02429833c0ca4b8725abd7 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I have several thoughts here: 1. I am hoping that "sgn-ase" (etc. etc.) is dealt with as part of incorporating ISO 639-3, that is, it is a special case of the more general treatment of extended language subtags. I suspect that it would be best if an ISO 639-3 code is either *always* a language subtag or *always* an extlang (with a specific prefix). 2. I think that tagging of signed languages should be cited as an example of the problem of incorporating ISO 639-3 in the charter. 3. It might be a good idea to consider, instead of more wordsmithing within 3066bis, splitting the document yet again. Sections 2 and 3 of the current document concern the format of tags and the creation and maintenance of the registry. These are mechanical, non-controversial things, which will require very little work. Section 4 ("Formation and Processing of Language Tags") might benefit from being its own, standalone, document incorporating more (and more accessible) material on choosing and using tags--including "best practices" in tag formation to address cases such as sign languages. Many of these recommendations are not normative in the sense of being at the MUST/MUST NOT level. Expanding on the reasons why one should use "sgn-ase-foobar" instead of, for example, "ase-US-xyzzy" would help users, but, pace my suspicion in item #1 above, either might be a valid tag, and even useful in certain situations. Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: Randy Presuhn [mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com] > Sent: jeudi 6 juillet 2006 10:30 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] Charter - sign(ed) language tag construction ? > > Hi - > > As a technical contributor... > > Would it make sense to add material on how tagging for sign(ed) > languages to the 3066ter effort being proposed? If so, could > Peter's message be distilled down to a high-level sentence for > the charter discussion? > > Randy > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter Constable" > To: "IETF Languages Discussion" > Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:22 AM > Subject: RE: Language Subtag Registration Form: variant "signed" > > > I had an hour conversation today with an SIL linguist that > has been assisting teams working on sign language projects > for a number > of years. We discussed various things, including the > phenomenon of "signed-spoken-lang-X" varieties. > > In thinking about how to construct tags for these languages, > the crucial question in my mind is this (using "signed English" in the > US as an example): > > Is signed English > > 1) basically English expressed in a different modality, > 2) basically ASL with some kind of modification or > qualification -- e.g. a dialect or register, or > 3) a pidgin of English and ASL? > > Whichever it is, we should tag it accordingly (and if three, > then possibly code as though it were a distinct language). > > I was thinking we might use a subtag "-signed" based on the > assumption that (1) was applicable. I know understand that these > language varieties typically fall into (2), though perhaps > sometimes into (3); generally these are probably best thought of as > registers of the relevant signed language. They typically use > phonology and lexica from the sign language and impose elements of the > syntax (possibly including morphology) of the spoken language. > > Thus, here's my thoughts on a good approach to tagging signed > languages: > > - We treat "sgn" as though it were a macrolanguage. (My > contact said that really wasn't that much of a stretch.) > > - We use ISO 639-3 IDs as extlang subtags together with a > primary subtag of "sgn"; e.g., "sgn-ase" for ASL. All signed languages > (SLs proper, not the Signed English cases) use tags > constructed this way. > > - We generally treat varieties like Signed English as > registers of the signed language they are associated with. > Thus, the tag is > formed by adding a variant subtag to the tag for the sign > language. Because there can be multiple varieties for a given sign > language/spoken language combination, registered variant > subtags provide the necessary level of flexibility. E.g. > something like > "sgn-ase-enexact" "sng-ase-enexact2" for SEE and SEE2; and > "sgn-ase-esbaja" for the signed Spanish spoken in southern Baja > California (which is based on ASL). > > - For cases of signed-spoken-lang-X that are pidgins, we > treat these based on whatever general principles we adopt for > pidgins. (I'm > not sure at the moment what that should be; the problem with > pidgins is that they are transitional and not yet stable -- they may > stabilize as a creole or they may continue to mutate or they > may disappear.) > > > This should give generally good results for matching > algorithms. Having "sgn" at the start immediately sets apart > the modality, > which will generally trump any other distinction in > importance to the user. A request for "sgn-ase" will return > results that include > (the hypothetical) "sgn-ase-enexact" and "sgn-ase-esbaja", > which is likely to be reasonable: an ASL speaker is going to recognize > all or nearly all of the lexical items in either case and so > will have about as much problem in comprehension as we'd expect from > dialect or register differences. > > This is a preliminary take. I'm know my understanding is > still limited, and that are likely to be several parts of what I've > outlined that need work and further discussion. > > > > > Peter Constable > _______________________________________________ > Ietf-languages mailing list > Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 07 08:22:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FypMA-0003i3-Fn; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:22:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FypM9-0003hO-1p for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:22:49 -0400 Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FypM5-0001DW-DZ for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:22:49 -0400 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k67CMfle026272 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:22:41 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 0139_495cabb6_0db3_11db_90f6_0014221f2a2d; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:22:41 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k67CMeKa019785 for ; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 21:22:41 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2006 21:22:27 +0900 To: LTRU Working Group From: Martin Duerst Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Subject: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Dear WG members, The IESG has approved the matching draft! Thanks again to all the people who made this possible, and sorry for all the delays and hassles with the process. For details, please see the link below. Regards, Martin. >Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:50:31 -0400 >Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-ltru-matching >'State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by >Amy Vezza' >ID Tracker URL: >https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13140&rfc_flag=0 #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 07 11:27:29 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FysEp-0001Br-40; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:27:27 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FysEn-0001Bm-KB for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:27:25 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FysEi-0005Ww-A7 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 11:27:25 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id s49so194229pyc for ; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:27:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=JkbKSc5yBNZd22UmLZ+ijZXiOsVljzLP4tWphYPXHK778xhCWH9MMzPqaFvXTNcahiLIVia18SLLzM5STuHJPefj2ByA6wNT0BRTTQdjE1IywBhPegaU64LRneT6B6GrDcjeRVriplzzk44NFfT92PiyVuy0ERLqX5p+RodBusw= Received: by 10.35.37.18 with SMTP id p18mr2267450pyj; Fri, 07 Jul 2006 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.67.20 with HTTP; Fri, 7 Jul 2006 08:27:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2006 08:27:19 -0700 From: "Mark Davis" To: "Martin Duerst" Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 0ea2463d430ba298 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f607d15ccc2bc4eaf3ade8ffa8af02a0 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0713904056==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============0713904056== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_35659_29044348.1152286039821" ------=_Part_35659_29044348.1152286039821 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thanks to all your hard work on this, Martin; and thanks especially to Addision for the tremendous amount of time he spent on the editing process! BTW, any word on when the two RFCs will be published? Mark On 7/7/06, Martin Duerst wrote: > > Dear WG members, > > The IESG has approved the matching draft! Thanks again to all the > people who made this possible, and sorry for all the delays and > hassles with the process. > > For details, please see the link below. > > Regards, Martin. > > >Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:50:31 -0400 > >Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-ltru-matching > > >'State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation > by > >Amy Vezza' > >ID Tracker URL: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13140&rfc_flag=0 > > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > ------=_Part_35659_29044348.1152286039821 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Thanks to all your hard work on this, Martin; and thanks especially to Addision for the tremendous amount of time he spent on the editing process!

BTW, any word on when the two RFCs will be published?

Mark

On 7/7/06, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
Dear WG members,

The IESG has approved the matching draft! Thanks again to all the
people who made this possible, and sorry for all the delays and
hassles with the process.

For details, please see the link below.

Regards,     Martin.

>Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2006 15:50:31 -0400
>Subject: ID Tracker State Update Notice: draft-ietf-ltru-matching

>'State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by
>Amy Vezza'
>ID Tracker URL:
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=13140&rfc_flag=0


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto: duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

------=_Part_35659_29044348.1152286039821-- --===============0713904056== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============0713904056==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 09 04:55:27 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzV4W-00025k-Rh; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:55:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzV4V-00025f-Np for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:55:23 -0400 Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.194]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzV4R-0004da-3L for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 04:55:23 -0400 Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k698tEqw029724; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:55:14 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 5624_a2f293cc_0f28_11db_9b99_0014221fa3c9; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 17:55:13 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k698t5MO020598; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 17:55:08 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060708141213.080016f0@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2006 14:22:40 +0900 To: "Mark Davis" From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG In-Reply-To: <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com > References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.3 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 00:27 06/07/08, Mark Davis wrote: >BTW, any word on when the two RFCs will be published? No. At the minimum, we have to wait for two months for potential appeals. Then, if there is an appeal, we have to wait for it to be dealt with. After that, things are up to the RFC Editor. You can check their queue at http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html. Then one day the editors will get a notice that the RFC Editor has prepared their document for publication, with information (diff) on what they changed. The editors then have to check these changes very carefully (in my own experience, some of them are just formatting changes, some are helpful wording improvements, some don't actually change anything, but some others easily may change the meaning of the document in a way not intended at all) and communicate back to the RFC Editor. This is supposed to be a very short period, that's why it's caled "authors 48 hours", although in general it's a bit longer. It's very important that: a) you check carefully and exactly tell the RFC Editor (in their format) what needs to be fixed, usally in several rounds, and b) ALL editors of a document explicitly acknowledge that the final version can be published. If one editor is on vacation or otherwise unreachable, the publication waits. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 09 07:42:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzXgI-0003hO-10; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:42:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzXgG-0003hJ-PS for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:42:32 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzXgG-0000ti-O0 for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:42:32 -0400 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzXgE-000635-AH for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 07:42:32 -0400 Received: from sabrina.qualcomm.com (sabrina.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.150]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k69BgNwO006861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 04:42:24 -0700 Received: from [10.1.242.250] (vpn-10-50-16-24.qualcomm.com [10.50.16.24]) by sabrina.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/1.0) with ESMTP id k69BgLuC002912; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 04:42:22 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060708141213.080016f0@localhost> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20060708141213.080016f0@localhost> Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 04:42:22 -0700 To: Martin Duerst , "Mark Davis" From: Ted Hardie Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 2:22 PM +0900 7/8/06, Martin Duerst wrote: >At 00:27 06/07/08, Mark Davis wrote: > >>BTW, any word on when the two RFCs will be published? > >No. At the minimum, we have to wait for two months for potential >appeals. Then, if there is an appeal, we have to wait for it to >be dealt with. After that, things are up to the RFC Editor. You >can check their queue at http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html. This isn't quite true. Someone filing an appeal has two months to do so, but that doesn't mean there is an automatic wait of two months; for drafts which are expedited (commonly because of dependencies on that draft holding up other publication), the RFC could appear quite quickly. Even normal processing can occur before two months if the queue happens to be well-drained at the moment the draft enters. What that implies is that an upheld appeal after publication results in a new document obsoleting the old one, rather than an update prior publication. regards, Ted _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 09 09:34:43 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzZQn-0000Ru-2t; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:34:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzZQk-0000RY-Vy; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:34:38 -0400 Received: from ithilien.qualcomm.com ([129.46.51.59]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzZQj-0002y2-M5; Sun, 09 Jul 2006 09:34:38 -0400 Received: from crowley.qualcomm.com (crowley.qualcomm.com [129.46.61.151]) by ithilien.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.12.5/1.0) with ESMTP id k69DYVje018230 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:34:31 -0700 Received: from [132.219.19.239] (vpn-10-50-16-58.qualcomm.com [10.50.16.58]) by crowley.qualcomm.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/1.0) with ESMTP id k69DYSCT004926; Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:34:29 -0700 (PDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20060709140732.03617490@afrac.org> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20060708141213.080016f0@localhost> <7.0.1.0.2.20060709140732.03617490@afrac.org> Date: Sun, 9 Jul 2006 06:34:30 -0700 To: r&d afrac , Martin Duerst , "Mark Davis" From: Ted Hardie Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: ltru@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 2:37 PM +0200 7/9/06, r&d afrac wrote: > >Dear Ted, >publishing a document knowing that it will be appealed can been seen as a pressure against treating fearly that appeal. jfc, I was giving a general response on how the system works, not trying to predict the course of a particular document. Holding a document because it might be appealed does not make sense for the usual processing; putting a standard "two month hold" on all documents would be a lengthy delay that was usually completely needless. That's what Martin's message implied, and it is not the case. The key thing for any appeal is that it be possible to provide a remedy if the appeal is upheld. In the case where a document is appealed before it is published, it is held until the appeal is resolved. In the case where a document is appealed after it is published, the document must be replaced (possibly with a short document naming the original as historic) if the appeal is upheld. Ted Hardie _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 10 04:57:41 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzrGj-0003ga-7I; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:37:29 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FzrGe-0003dA-Bo for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:37:24 -0400 Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fzr9b-00027w-0n for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 04:30:10 -0400 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k6A8U21k023332; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:30:02 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 1be7_47da16a6_0fee_11db_97b4_0014221f2a2d; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:30:01 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6A8Tv3d009525; Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:29:58 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060710163934.06c5caa0@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 16:39:58 +0900 To: Ted Hardie , "Mark Davis" From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by theIESG In-Reply-To: References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> <30b660a20607070827g88c9daak2048987e087a3530@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20060708141213.080016f0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 20:42 06/07/09, Ted Hardie wrote: >At 2:22 PM +0900 7/8/06, Martin Duerst wrote: >>At 00:27 06/07/08, Mark Davis wrote: >> >>>BTW, any word on when the two RFCs will be published? >> >>No. At the minimum, we have to wait for two months for potential >>appeals. Then, if there is an appeal, we have to wait for it to >>be dealt with. After that, things are up to the RFC Editor. You >>can check their queue at http://www.rfc-editor.org/queue.html. > >This isn't quite true. Sorry I got this wrong. Thanks for the clarification, Ted. Martin. >Someone filing an appeal has two months to do so, >but that doesn't mean there is an automatic wait of two months; for >drafts which are expedited (commonly because of dependencies >on that draft holding up other publication), the RFC could appear quite >quickly. Even normal processing can occur before two months if the >queue happens to be well-drained at the moment the draft enters. > >What that implies is that an upheld appeal after publication results in >a new document obsoleting the old one, rather than an update prior >publication. > > regards, > Ted #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 11 19:55:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0S50-0001v5-4r; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:55:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0S4y-0001v0-C0 for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:55:48 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0S4w-0000Mq-SJ for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:55:48 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1G0S4u-0002Zq-JI for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:55:44 +0200 Received: from pd9fba932.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.50]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:55:44 +0200 Received: from nobody by pd9fba932.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:55:44 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@lists.ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 01:54:32 +0200 Organization: Lines: 27 Message-ID: <44B43A38.36D9@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060628171403.0976b300@localhost> <200606282306.k5SN6iIo019633@mta3.iomartmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba932.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Re: Preliminary Investigation into Application of ISO 11179 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Debbie Garside wrote: > The format of these data elements is as follows: > - ICD: integer, variable length, up to 4 digits; > - Identification of an organization: variable length, up to 35 characters; > - OPI: variable length, up to 35 characters; > - OPIS: 1 character. > No particular sequence of the four components is specified (at least not in > ISO 11179). You used 1234.IETF.LTRU as an example with "LTRU" in the place of 'OPI', as a "department within the IETF" if I got it right. Often IETF WGs are temporary collaborations, closed when they are ready, which can take years, but they're generally not permanent institutions. That's probably also understood for the 'OPI' departments, but maybe you'd want a more persistent identifier. Actually you need the "expert review list", then you'd end up with 1234.IANA.LSR (hosted and organized by Harald on behalf of the IESG on behalf of the IETF for IANA or similar, maybe the "IETF application area" is also involved). Or you could use BCP47 as 'OPI', BCP47 would exist even if LTRU is closed. Some random thoughts while reading your older message, bye. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 11 20:08:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0SHf-0002xg-7h; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:08:55 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0SHd-0002ws-RL for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 20:08:53 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0RIo-0004rJ-5T for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:06:02 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0RAM-0006LO-6Y for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 11 Jul 2006 18:57:20 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1G0RA5-00035k-SA for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:57:01 +0200 Received: from pd9fbad0e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.173.14]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:57:01 +0200 Received: from nobody by pd9fbad0e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:57:01 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@lists.ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:54:54 +0200 Organization: Lines: 13 Message-ID: <44B42C3E.C10@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060707211933.07869b40@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fbad0e.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Re: Good news: draft-ietf-ltru-matching approved by the IESG X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Martin Duerst wrote: > The IESG has approved the matching draft! Really good news. My guess that 3066bis will get its number before RFC 4408 turned out to be wrong, but the overall time of about three years from concept to RFC (if there are any survivors) isn't too bad. Expecting some progress with soon, thanks, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 12 15:06:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0k2y-0002Gh-AP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:06:56 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0k2w-0002GH-Qy for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:06:54 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0hAm-0003oQ-H6 for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 12:02:48 -0400 Received: from mail2.sharplabs.com ([216.65.151.51]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0gi2-0006um-QV for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 11:33:09 -0400 Received: from admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com (admsrvnt02 [172.29.225.253]) by mail2.sharplabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE9141E1518 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:32:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:32:59 -0700 Message-ID: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE71@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> From: "McDonald, Ira" To: ltru@lists.ietf.org Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 08:32:53 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: -1.8 (-) X-Scan-Signature: 8b431ad66d60be2d47c7bfeb879db82c Cc: Subject: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi, Please take a few minutes to look at this link Chris Lilley cites below - this document proposes an alarming abuse of language tags to include charset suffixes! Cheers, - Ira Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com -----Original Message----- From: www-international-request@w3.org [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chris Lilley Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:08 AM To: www-international@w3.org Subject: encoding languages and writing systems Hello www-international, My attention was recently drawn to this document, by the Center for Hellenic Studies in Washington: Developing standards for encoding languages and writing systems in the editing of Greek and Latin texts http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script Its interesting both for the way it reflects current work (eg, use of RFC 3066bis) and the way it seems to diverge from it (either I don't understand what they mean by a 'mapping', or else they propose character abuse and don't understand that XML has a single document character set). -- Chris Lilley mailto:chris@w3.org Interaction Domain Leader Co-Chair, W3C SVG Working Group W3C Graphics Activity Lead Co-Chair, W3C Hypertext CG -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.9.10/386 - Release Date: 7/12/2006 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 12 15:59:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0krS-0006AO-2l; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:59:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0krQ-00069t-Om for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:59:04 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0krP-0001Sh-BR for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:59:04 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G0krO-00011C-22; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:59:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:59:02 -0400 To: ietf-languages@iana.org, www-international@w3.org, ltru@ietf.org Message-ID: <20060712195901.GP18595@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I have just sent the following email to Neel Smith with respect to his page "Developing standards for encoding languages and writing systems in the editing of Greek and Latin texts". Dear Dr. Smith: I write to you as a member of LTRU, the IETF working group responsible for RFC 3066bis, and as a long-term member of ietf-languages, the mailing list that actually registers language tags. I do not, however, speak officially for either of these. I have read with interest your page on language and script encoding at http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script after Chris Lilley of W3C drew attention to it on the www-international mailing list. I'll send all three lists copies of this email and (with your permission) any reply you send me. I wish to bring to your attention a variety of minor difficulties with the statements and suggestions on that page, in the hope that we can work together to bring about a satisfactory resolution which provides for all the concerns of the classics community. 1. The xml:lang attribute technically does not yet support RFC 3066bis, and RFC 3066bis does not incorporate all the codes of ISO 639-3 (that must wait until ISO finalizes ISO 639-3 and IETF issues RFC 3066ter). However, these are mere matters of timing, and in substance there is no reason why such codes cannot be used immediately. 2. The distinction between standard Greek and the epichoric alphabets is not one of "script" as that term is defined in ISO 15924. The Estrangelo, Western, and Eastern varieties of Syriac are distinguished there because they use fundamentally different letter shapes, on a par with the difference between Carolingian/Antiqua, insular, and Fraktur varieties of Latin script. Epichoric alphabets, on the other hand, differ in orthography rather than in script: they use different conventions for assigning sounds to Greek letters, and in some cases use additional letters, just as is the case for English, German, and Icelandic, all of which share the Latin script. The same remarks apply to 23-letter and 26-letter varieties of the Latin language: these are different orthographies rather than different scripts. 3. Likewise, the dialects of Ancient Greek were not (as far as I know) mutually unintelligible, and therefore should not be given separate language codes in ISO 639-3 according to the principles of that standard. (The line drawn between Ancient and Modern Greek there is obviously arbitrary, and is inherited from earlier parts of ISO 639.) 4. Treating beta code and UTF-8 on a par with each other is a confusion of levels. UTF-8 (and other kinds of Unicode), like ASCII or the various ISO 8859 standards, are encodings representing a mapping from characters to bits. Beta code, on the other hand, is a transliteration standard for Ancient Greek, representing a mapping from the Greek character repertoire to the ASCII repertoire. There is nothing preventing a document in beta code from being represented in an encoding other than ASCII, as long as that encoding supports the ASCII repertoire (as in practice all encodings do). There is no need to represent the encoding of an XML document using xml:lang (you cannot even parse the document until you have determined its encoding), but there is need to represent any transliteration standard that is in use. 5. Fortunately, the variant subtag mechanism of RFC 3066bis provides a solution for all three of these problems. By registering variant subtags (a fairly quick and easy process), it is possible to create tags that specify epichoric orthographies, dialects, and transliteration methods to any desired degree of detail. In order to do this, it would be necessary to fix an order in which these variants should appear (with the understanding that any or all may be omitted) and then propose the variants themselves, each with an associated 5-letter to 8-letter subtag. We already have variant subtags for the old and new German orthographies, for Slovenian dialects (as you note), and have discussed transliteration subtags, though without coming to definite conclusions. 6. The rules of RFC 3066bis require that "la" rather than "lat" be used to represent the Latin language (always use 2-letter ISO 639-1 rather than 3-letter ISO 639 tags when available), and strongly recommend that "Grek" be omitted from tags beginning with "grc", since Greek is the normal and usual script for Ancient Greek (grc-Linb would be suitable for Linear B texts, though). I would urge you to join ietf-languages using the web page at http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages and discuss the matter further in a public forum. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 12 17:06:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0luR-000382-9d; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:06:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0luP-00036N-VX for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:06:13 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0lHW-0004CW-BD for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:26:02 -0400 Received: from pop-siberian.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.71]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0lBp-0002hP-V8 for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:20:13 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-6-124.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.6.124] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-siberian.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1G0lBh-0002w0-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:20:01 -0400 Message-ID: <000601c6a5f0$b30633a0$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE71@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:21:02 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-) X-Scan-Signature: bb8f917bb6b8da28fc948aeffb74aa17 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "McDonald, Ira" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:32 AM > Subject: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems ... > Please take a few minutes to look at this link Chris Lilley > cites below - this document proposes an alarming abuse of > language tags to include charset suffixes! ... > From: www-international-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chris Lilley > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:08 AM ... > http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script > > Its interesting both for the way it reflects current work (eg, use of RFC > 3066bis) and the way it seems to diverge from it (either I don't understand > what they mean by a 'mapping', or else they propose character abuse and > don't understand that XML has a single document character set). ... As a technical contributor... I agree with Ira and Chris that including character set identification in the language tag would be a bad idea. In particular, it's worth noting that this WG explicitly rejected the notion of trying to combine character set information with language tagging. (Issue #890 at https://rt.psg.com/ user and password "ietf") Does anyone know how to contact the authors of that paper? Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 12 17:58:18 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0mim-0005px-8T; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:58:16 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0mik-0005oY-OI for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:58:14 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.179]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0mij-0006pF-Bw for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 17:58:14 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id w49so12462pyg for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=PC6Hb9n4VA+nWFjqzuBVP0mNVVaI5eJ3my0MoHpYBUT69iLe7dYwD+QvnviGa8rrn1atjDyY4girwKOOdrL0hTVtuWx/tHNO/Z1AqmO3Esa+kvmqcj/1VKpYU8ao22jnP/74oYO1p1WHP3Wj0R05LNlj21Ql7+9wJxBqCyCZwaM= Received: by 10.35.90.20 with SMTP id s20mr52314pyl; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:58:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.67.20 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:58:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30b660a20607121458y2a8d23fcwc66f48fa87b01ffe@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 14:58:12 -0700 From: "Mark Davis" To: "Randy Presuhn" Subject: Re: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems In-Reply-To: <000601c6a5f0$b30633a0$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE71@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> <000601c6a5f0$b30633a0$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3128bf4ee0ab163b X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1529924828==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============1529924828== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1538_8776508.1152741492948" ------=_Part_1538_8776508.1152741492948 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I firmly agree; this is a settled issue. I find the original paper ill-thought out. It's worth contacting the authors to find out what they really had in mind. Mark On 7/12/06, Randy Presuhn wrote: > > Hi - > > > From: "McDonald, Ira" > > To: > > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:32 AM > > Subject: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems > ... > > Please take a few minutes to look at this link Chris Lilley > > cites below - this document proposes an alarming abuse of > > language tags to include charset suffixes! > ... > > From: www-international-request@w3.org > > [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chris Lilley > > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:08 AM > ... > > http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script > > > > Its interesting both for the way it reflects current work (eg, use of > RFC > > 3066bis) and the way it seems to diverge from it (either I don't > understand > > what they mean by a 'mapping', or else they propose character abuse and > > don't understand that XML has a single document character set). > ... > > As a technical contributor... > I agree with Ira and Chris that including character set identification > in the language tag would be a bad idea. > > In particular, it's worth noting that this WG explicitly rejected the > notion of trying to combine character set information with language > tagging. (Issue #890 at https://rt.psg.com/ user and password "ietf") > > Does anyone know how to contact the authors of that paper? > > Randy > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > ------=_Part_1538_8776508.1152741492948 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I firmly agree; this is a settled issue. I find the original paper ill-thought out. It's worth contacting the authors to find out what they really had in mind.

Mark

On 7/12/06, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
Hi -

> From: "McDonald, Ira" <imcdonald@sharplabs.com>
> To: <ltru@lists.ietf.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:32 AM
> Subject: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems
...
> Please take a few minutes to look at this link Chris Lilley
> cites below - this document proposes an alarming abuse of
> language tags to include charset suffixes!
...
> From: www-international-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-international-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Chris Lilley
> Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:08 AM
...
> http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script
>
> Its interesting both for the way it reflects current work (eg, use of RFC
> 3066bis) and the way it seems to diverge from it (either I don't understand
> what they mean by a 'mapping', or else they propose character abuse and
> don't understand that XML has a single document character set).
...

As a technical contributor...
I agree with Ira and Chris that including character set identification
in the language tag would be a bad idea.

In particular, it's worth noting that this WG explicitly rejected the
notion of trying to combine character set information with language
tagging.  (Issue #890 at https://rt.psg.com/ user and password "ietf")

Does anyone know how to contact the authors of that paper?

Randy


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

------=_Part_1538_8776508.1152741492948-- --===============1529924828== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1529924828==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 12 19:33:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oCq-0001Sg-0o; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:33:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oCp-0001Sb-6r for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:33:23 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oCm-0008Ft-W5 for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:33:23 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G0ncg-0001UR-59; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:56:02 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:56:02 -0400 To: Mark Davis Subject: Re: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems Message-ID: <20060712225602.GX18595@ccil.org> References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE71@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> <000601c6a5f0$b30633a0$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> <30b660a20607121458y2a8d23fcwc66f48fa87b01ffe@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <30b660a20607121458y2a8d23fcwc66f48fa87b01ffe@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mark Davis scripsit: > I firmly agree; this is a settled issue. I find the original paper > ill-thought out. It's worth contacting the authors to find out what they > really had in mind. I have! I have! Why is nobody listening? -- Híggledy-pìggledy / XML programmers John Cowan Try to escape those / I-eighteen-N woes; http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Incontrovertibly / What we need more of is cowan@ccil.org Unicode weenies and / François Yergeaus. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Wed Jul 12 19:45:39 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oOf-0003KB-JN; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:45:37 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oOe-0003K6-G7 for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:45:36 -0400 Received: from pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.61]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G0oOd-0000or-9Z for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:45:36 -0400 Received: from h-68-165-6-124.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.165.6.124] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-gadwall.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1G0oOc-00005h-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 19:45:34 -0400 Message-ID: <001601c6a60d$5e18b120$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE71@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com><000601c6a5f0$b30633a0$6501a8c0@oemcomputer><30b660a20607121458y2a8d23fcwc66f48fa87b01ffe@mail.gmail.com> <20060712225602.GX18595@ccil.org> Subject: Re: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:46:15 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - > From: "John Cowan" > To: "Mark Davis" > Cc: > Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 3:56 PM > Subject: Re: [Ltru] FW: encoding languages and writing systems > > Mark Davis scripsit: > > I firmly agree; this is a settled issue. I find the original paper > > ill-thought out. It's worth contacting the authors to find out what they > > really had in mind. > > I have! I have! Why is nobody listening? ... We are. Queueing and propagation delay may be factors. Randy _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 04:47:30 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1JKb-0002hf-5Z; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:47:29 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1JKa-0002fn-0y for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:47:28 -0400 Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1JKV-0000by-Aw for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 04:47:28 -0400 Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k6E8l1a4002404; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:47:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 74a1_50e91d58_1315_11db_89de_0014221fa3c9; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:47:00 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.6/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6E8kihh004160; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:46:50 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 17:46:28 +0900 To: John Cowan , ietf-languages@iana.org, www-international@w3.org, ltru@ietf.org From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards In-Reply-To: <20060712195901.GP18595@ccil.org> References: <20060712195901.GP18595@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 3e15cc4fdc61d7bce84032741d11c8e5 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hello John, Many thanks for doing this so quickly and precisely. With regards to transliterations, I think two uses have to be distinguished: a) Transliterations for human users. These will continue to be used. b) Transliterations for computers, i.e. to get around limitations in encodings or software. Beta coding is clearly such an example. These will die out. Rather than copying beta code into XML, converting it back to the real stuff is highly advisable (and a tool is apparently provided on that Web site). With respect to not yet encoded scripts, such as those mentioned in the article, there are various cases: - Things not really scripts, rejected (e.g. Klingon) - Variants that are not considered independent scripts - Not yet encoded scripts. In this case, it's much more useful to work on documentation and stuff for getting the script encoded in Unicode rather than to invent yet another transliteration. Regards, Martin. At 04:59 06/07/13, John Cowan wrote: >I have just sent the following email to Neel Smith with respect to his >page "Developing standards for encoding languages and writing systems >in the editing of Greek and Latin texts". > >Dear Dr. Smith: > >I write to you as a member of LTRU, the IETF working group responsible >for RFC 3066bis, and as a long-term member of ietf-languages, the mailing >list that actually registers language tags. I do not, however, speak >officially for either of these. > >I have read with interest your page on language and script encoding >at http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script after >Chris Lilley of W3C drew attention to it on the www-international >mailing list. I'll send all three lists copies of this email and (with >your permission) any reply you send me. >I would urge you to join ietf-languages using the web page at >http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages and discuss >the matter further in a public forum. > >-- >John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > Is it not written, "That which is written, is written"? #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 11:16:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PPT-0006TJ-3r; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:16:55 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PPR-0006SN-HI for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:16:53 -0400 Received: from mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PPP-0005ml-BF for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:16:53 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c157.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.157]) by mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6EFGNot099046; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:16:24 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=Gg7vO3Ep+Xo54FwXpWjKU0dRb0v8+D2grkVIMjdYPgRGXeLbHbdwhjOHH6mSxyPu From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Martin Duerst'" , "'John Cowan'" , , , Subject: RE: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:16:23 -0700 Message-ID: <000b01c6a758$78e804f0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcanIid/7tGvK+3AQmWTYs+qT2wu+AANhTtQ X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > - Not yet encoded scripts. In this case, it's much more > useful to work on documentation and stuff for getting > the script encoded in Unicode rather than to invent yet > another transliteration. Which makes me curious: is there any reason that a not-yet-encoded script cannot have an ISO 15924 script code? There doesn't seem to be a reason not to assign a script code if the script is well identified. Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 11:20:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PT7-000793-TD; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:20:41 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PT6-00078q-RQ for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:20:40 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PT5-0006IQ-Ka for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:20:40 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G1PT5-0003qp-5a; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:20:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:20:39 -0400 To: Addison Phillips Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Message-ID: <20060714152039.GK24361@ccil.org> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> <000b01c6a758$78e804f0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000b01c6a758$78e804f0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison Phillips scripsit: > Which makes me curious: is there any reason that a not-yet-encoded script > cannot have an ISO 15924 script code? There doesn't seem to be a reason not > to assign a script code if the script is well identified. There is not only no reason, but such codes actually already exist. Consider Blissymbolics, Cirth, Cypriot, Egyptian this'n'that, Indus ... the list goes on. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan There was an old man Said with a laugh, "I From Peru, whose lim'ricks all Cut them in half, the pay is Look'd like haiku. He Much better for two." --Emmet O'Brien _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 11:53:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PyR-0002ag-Vp; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:53:03 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PyQ-0002ab-Kz for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:53:02 -0400 Received: from white.dnsireland.com ([67.15.182.33]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PyO-0004Az-A0 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:53:02 -0400 Received: from [88.81.100.235] (helo=[129.215.48.15]) by white.dnsireland.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.52) id 1G1PxS-0003em-NM; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:52:03 +0100 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <000b01c6a758$78e804f0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> References: <000b01c6a758$78e804f0$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 16:47:19 +0100 To: "Addison Phillips" , "'Martin Duerst'" , "'John Cowan'" , , , From: Michael Everson Subject: RE: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - white.dnsireland.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - ietf.org X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [0 0] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - evertype.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org At 08:16 -0700 2006-07-14, Addison Phillips wrote: > > - Not yet encoded scripts. In this case, it's much more >> useful to work on documentation and stuff for getting >> the script encoded in Unicode rather than to invent yet >> another transliteration. > >Which makes me curious: is there any reason that a not-yet-encoded script >cannot have an ISO 15924 script code? There doesn't seem to be a reason not >to assign a script code if the script is well identified. No, and there are some non-Unicode scripts which have script codes. We tend toward conservatism here, but are waiting for the proposal for Ewellic to come through. ;-) -- Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 11:54:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1Q0D-00038a-H5; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:54:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1Q0C-00038V-UE for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:54:52 -0400 Received: from mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PYE-000739-TG for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:26:00 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn1-10-72-72-c157.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.72.157]) by mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6EFPdKZ000128; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:25:40 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=FYPsgUSHuiharrvkLC0hbUFyIp/ypB1au1F4NNOaOrm479n6RZaB6t7z70hbeBTX From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'John Cowan'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 08:25:39 -0700 Message-ID: <000d01c6a759$c39f9020$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <20060714152039.GK24361@ccil.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcanWROia+cUsXIiQh6WhoYj1lkMCQAAHiXQ X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: de4f315c9369b71d7dd5909b42224370 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > > > Which makes me curious: is there any reason that a > not-yet-encoded script > > cannot have an ISO 15924 script code? There doesn't seem to > be a reason not > > to assign a script code if the script is well identified. > > There is not only no reason, but such codes actually already exist. > Consider Blissymbolics, Cirth, Cypriot, Egyptian this'n'that, > Indus ... > the list goes on. > So you can see where I'm going with this: script variations should not use variants or private use codes. They should be referred to ISO 15924. Addison _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 12:12:28 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1QHE-0007aK-9c; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:12:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1QHD-0007aF-FX for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:12:27 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1QHC-0000LK-9L for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:12:27 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G1QHB-0005YA-VI; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:12:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:12:25 -0400 To: Addison Phillips Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Message-ID: <20060714161225.GY18595@ccil.org> References: <20060714152039.GK24361@ccil.org> <000d01c6a759$c39f9020$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <000d01c6a759$c39f9020$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison Phillips scripsit: > So you can see where I'm going with this: script variations should not use > variants or private use codes. They should be referred to ISO 15924. Doubtless. But I doubt very much that any of these supposed script variations are anything of the sort. -- Winter: MIT, John Cowan Keio, INRIA, cowan@ccil.org Issue lots of Drafts. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan So much more to understand! Might simplicity return? (A "tanka", or extended haiku) _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 14 13:38:12 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1RcC-0005fw-AD; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:38:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1RcB-0005fr-Ib for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:38:11 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1RcA-0001Y6-CA for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:38:11 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G1Rc7-00082m-Jx; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:38:07 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 13:38:07 -0400 To: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Message-ID: <20060714173807.GD18595@ccil.org> References: <20060712195901.GP18595@ccil.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org, www-international@w3.org, ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Martin Duerst scripsit: > a) Transliterations for human users. These will continue to be > used. Agreed. > b) Transliterations for computers, i.e. to get around limitations > in encodings or software. Beta coding is clearly such an example. > These will die out. Beta code still has substantial advantages in its niche market: 1) It's easier to keyboard than full Unicode; 2) It's easier to extend by agreement, and continues to handle matters that are either not yet in Unicode or will never be in Unicode, being appropriate for high-level protocols. Don't count it out yet. -- A: "Spiro conjectures Ex-Lax." John Cowan Q: "What does Pat Nixon frost her cakes with?" cowan@ccil.org --"Jeopardy" for generative semanticists http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 15 01:37:10 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1cpy-0001Se-BU; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:37:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1cpx-0001SL-6d for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:37:09 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1cpx-00082R-4n for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:37:09 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1cog-0002fj-A5 for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:35:52 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060715053549.HLVY28866.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Sat, 15 Jul 2006 01:35:49 -0400 Message-ID: <003801c6a7d0$ced96e30$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Subject: Re: [Ltru] Language and script encoding standards Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 22:37:48 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Michael Everson wrote: >> Which makes me curious: is there any reason that a not-yet-encoded >> script cannot have an ISO 15924 script code? There doesn't seem to be >> a reason not to assign a script code if the script is well >> identified. > > No, and there are some non-Unicode scripts which have script codes. We > tend toward conservatism here, but are waiting for the proposal for > Ewellic to come through. ;-) I'd write it, but: 1. Ewellic has been used non-trivially by only one person, as far as I know, which severely limits the need for public interchange and thus for public coding. Cut Spelling would appear to be a runaway popular success by comparison. 2. Such a proposal would likely hang in limbo indefinitely, neither accepted nor rejected, much like the ConScript proposal which was last revised 4 years ago but still has not been approved for registration. (Sorry.) -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 17 03:33:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G2NbC-0002Tj-1w; Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:33:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PMo-0005jm-28 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:14:10 -0400 Received: from smtpsrv0.isis.unc.edu ([152.2.1.139] helo=smtp.unc.edu) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G1PMm-0004lU-OH for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:14:10 -0400 Received: from [152.23.175.233] (dhcp28935.vpn.unc.edu [152.23.175.233]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.unc.edu (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k6EFDbpY027400 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:13:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <44B7B4A1.5070807@email.unc.edu> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:13:37 -0500 From: Tom Elliott Organization: Ancient World Mapping Center UNC-CH User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Martin Duerst References: <20060712195901.GP18595@ccil.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060713170941.0640c560@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: ITS Messaging Systems (outgoing) on 152.2.1.139 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8de5f93cb2b4e3bee75302e9eacc33db X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 17 Jul 2006 03:33:00 -0400 Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org, ltru@ietf.org, www-international@w3.org Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Dear list members, Apologies in advance for this intervention from a new subscriber, but I am directly involved in some of these matters (details below). I greatly appreciate Martin's distinction between types of transliteration -- it is very important that we have a way to indicate human-use transliterations for a number of reasons (I'll spare you specific use cases unless requested). I would like to offer a caveat with regard to his observation concerning the second class of transliteration: Martin Duerst wrote: > b) Transliterations for computers, i.e. to get around limitations > in encodings or software. Beta coding is clearly such an example. > These will die out. Certainly this will eventually be the case, and some of us hope that day comes sooner than later; however, the fact is that there are at least 2 factors that will delay the demise of beta code: 1. There are some well-established projects with large beta-coded text collections and V&V'd tooling for working with those texts (think search; indexing; linguistic parsing; transformation to other transliteration schemes, legacy font encodings and Unicode Greek of one or another composition flavor). There is no guarantee that these projects have the overhead or funding to do retrospective conversion of these text bases -- let alone the re-engineering of all their tooling -- in any kind of rapid way. There's just not that much money sloshing around in humanities tech. Now, I'm willing to admit that what goes on behind the scenes in such systems needn't be foisted upon the wider, web-using public; however, I can envision scenarios in which such projects might care to share data with each other (e.g., via a web service) in which beta remains the carrier for the Greek. Would they not want a way to communicate explicitly about this fact? 2. There is a subset of the user base that would prefer to work with beta-coded Greek texts natively (I can't quantify the number, but many are actively productive scholars and some are fully tech-savvy). These are mostly people for whom one or more of the following is true: (a) they learned to type and read beta a long time ago and are completely comfortable and speedily effective with it (more so than, say, even with a good keyboard interpreter); (b) they work on older platforms where either it's not possible (or a giant pain) to do either/both Unicode input/or and display. They are not likely to pursue upgrades any time soon, as their funds are limited and/or they do not see the point: they're focused on achieving certain research and publishing goals and the methods they currently use are efficient and effective in achieving those goals. For most, if a clear case is made for *more* efficiency and effectiveness in achieving those *specific* personal goals, then the willingness to upgrade and learn new tricks follows as a matter of course. But this sort of narrowly-focused calculus can often be difficult to achieve. I'd like to make one minor observation here as well: > With respect to not yet encoded scripts, such as those mentioned in > the article, there are various cases: > - Things not really scripts, rejected (e.g. Klingon) > - Variants that are not considered independent scripts > - Not yet encoded scripts. In this case, it's much more > useful to work on documentation and stuff for getting > the script encoded in Unicode rather than to invent yet > another transliteration. There are scholarly communities that will continue to use established transliteration schemes -- for various considered reasons -- regardless of the presence of the script-in-question's presence in Unicode. Etruscan is an example. I make these comments, not in any attempt to disagree, but rather to communicate some of the background and facts on the ground in the hopes that complete and effective solutions can be found. I should also say that I cannot take credit for authorship of Neel's document, but I have been involved in some of the CHS Technical Working Group discussions that lie behind and around it. The issues are directly relevant to my work in a number of contexts, including: http://www.unc.edu/awmc/pleiades.html http://epidoc.sf.net Best, Tom -- Tom Elliott, Ph.D. Director, Pleiades Project Ancient World Mapping Center University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://www.unc.edu/awmc/pleiades.html _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 22 15:28:51 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4N9e-00005X-Ki; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:28:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4N9d-00005S-Fv for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:28:49 -0400 Received: from mta13.mail.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.44] helo=mta13.adelphia.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4N9c-0008Ix-4m for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:28:49 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060722192843.SLYU10992.mta13.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 15:28:43 -0400 Message-ID: <009901c6adc5$07f531f0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" , References: Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 12:28:36 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 50a516d93fd399dc60588708fd9a3002 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Apologies if I woke anyone up. :-) Both lists have been very quiet of late. I think the important points that have emerged from this discussion on LTRU [1] are: 1. There is a need to tag content that follows certain systems of transliteration or transcription. While the original Greek text (or Cyrillic or Devanagari or whatever) will generally be more "authentic" in a way, transcriptions will continue to have their place in scholarly as well as popular material. Sometimes it may be important to indicate the transcription scheme of tagged content; we are in no position to say this is not the case. While we have defined a mechanism for variant subtags, it is somewhat vague (of necessity) and my impression is that the bar for acceptance of a variant subtag proposal on ietf-languages is fairly high. Every discussion about a variant subtag proposal becomes a discussion of the deeper question of whether a variant is the appropriate vehicle for the purpose. This is reasonable, but not if it draws too much attention from the specific proposal at hand, and not if the bar for acceptance is disproportionately high compared to the criteria for encoding a language in ISO 639, a script in 15924, or a country in 3166. Section 2.2.5 says, "Variant subtags are used to indicate additional, well-recognized variations that define a language or its dialects which are not covered by other available subtags," and we should reach an understanding on exactly what that means, so that when a real proposal comes along, we don't have to have that discussion again. 2. The Neel Smith document [2] shows quite a bit of misunderstanding of RFC 3066bis: tagging of character sets, use of code elements directly from ISO standards instead of the Registry (Smith would not have proposed using "grc" and "lat" otherwise), conflation of local alphabetic variation with the ISO 15924 concept of "script." More documents and papers that explain the RFC 3066bis mechanisms, such as those already written by Addison and Mark, will help. I suspect more will be written after the documents are finally given RFC numbers and the mapping to "BCP 47" is finally moved. [1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg05087.html [2] http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 22 19:54:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4RJ3-0000Am-Er; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:54:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4RJ2-0000Ah-BZ for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:54:48 -0400 Received: from pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net ([207.69.195.70]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4RJ1-0000jZ-0j for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:54:48 -0400 Received: from h-68-166-189-41.snvacaid.dynamic.covad.net ([68.166.189.41] helo=oemcomputer) by pop-borzoi.atl.sa.earthlink.net with smtp (Exim 3.36 #10) id 1G4RJ0-0004L0-00 for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 22 Jul 2006 19:54:46 -0400 Message-ID: <002e01c6adea$61d77320$6501a8c0@oemcomputer> From: "Randy Presuhn" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <009901c6adc5$07f531f0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards Date: Sat, 22 Jul 2006 16:55:59 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: f60d0f7806b0c40781eee6b9cd0b2135 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hi - Do you want any of this to be considered as part of the potential work on a 3066ter? If so, do you have specific language for inclusion in a charter update proposal? Randy > From: "Doug Ewell" > To: "LTRU Working Group" ; > Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2006 12:28 PM > Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards > > Apologies if I woke anyone up. :-) Both lists have been very quiet of > late. > > I think the important points that have emerged from this discussion on > LTRU [1] are: > > 1. There is a need to tag content that follows certain systems of > transliteration or transcription. While the original Greek text (or > Cyrillic or Devanagari or whatever) will generally be more "authentic" > in a way, transcriptions will continue to have their place in scholarly > as well as popular material. Sometimes it may be important to indicate > the transcription scheme of tagged content; we are in no position to say > this is not the case. > > While we have defined a mechanism for variant subtags, it is somewhat > vague (of necessity) and my impression is that the bar for acceptance of > a variant subtag proposal on ietf-languages is fairly high. Every > discussion about a variant subtag proposal becomes a discussion of the > deeper question of whether a variant is the appropriate vehicle for the > purpose. This is reasonable, but not if it draws too much attention > from the specific proposal at hand, and not if the bar for acceptance is > disproportionately high compared to the criteria for encoding a language > in ISO 639, a script in 15924, or a country in 3166. > > Section 2.2.5 says, "Variant subtags are used to indicate additional, > well-recognized variations that define a language or its dialects which > are not covered by other available subtags," and we should reach an > understanding on exactly what that means, so that when a real proposal > comes along, we don't have to have that discussion again. > > 2. The Neel Smith document [2] shows quite a bit of misunderstanding of > RFC 3066bis: tagging of character sets, use of code elements directly > from ISO standards instead of the Registry (Smith would not have > proposed using "grc" and "lat" otherwise), conflation of local > alphabetic variation with the ISO 15924 concept of "script." More > documents and papers that explain the RFC 3066bis mechanisms, such as > those already written by Addison and Mark, will help. I suspect more > will be written after the documents are finally given RFC numbers and > the mapping to "BCP 47" is finally moved. > > [1] http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg05087.html > [2] http://chs75.harvard.edu/projects/diginc/techpub/language-script > > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California, USA > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 24 08:52:03 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4zui-0003pv-ED; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:52:00 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4zuh-0003pj-5F for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:51:59 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4zDK-0005A9-Kx for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:07:10 -0400 Received: from mx2.nic.fr ([192.134.4.11]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G4zDH-0006hB-9i for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:07:10 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2669526C191 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:07:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from relay2.nic.fr (relay2.nic.fr [192.134.4.163]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2920326C134 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:07:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from batilda.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 246F158ED15 for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:07:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: by batilda.nic.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 198B916A9D5; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:07:01 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 14:07:01 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: LTRU Working Group Message-ID: <20060724120701.GA32143@nic.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.8-2-686 i686 Organization: NIC France X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/ User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at mx2.nic.fr X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 30ac594df0e66ffa5a93eb4c48bcb014 Subject: [Ltru] Registry in XML? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I'm looking for a more structured version of the language subtag registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry), preferrably XML. Was it done already? Or should I write the schema and the Python script myself? (At the APRICOT 2006 conference, David Conrad, IANA manager, announced a project to rewrite all the IANA registries as XML files - they are currently plain text. But I do not know if the project is still considered?) _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 24 11:23:20 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G52HA-0001KV-1K; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:23:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G52H8-0001Ga-N6 for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:23:18 -0400 Received: from mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.28]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G52H7-0000Jz-EV for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 11:23:18 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn2-10-72-76-c190.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.76.190]) by mrout2-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6OFNEqV018531; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:23:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:x-mimeole:thread-index:in-reply-to; b=gLvKNOpjd+/jkgp98vljzCzQuW7+XZhIA8J8FdFBECTObGGo1Qs0TfIVFH/85xF9 From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Stephane Bortzmeyer'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Registry in XML? Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 08:23:12 -0700 Message-ID: <005801c6af35$14799e40$660a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcavH/s0FOi01YucSku1iGNQmJIPZAAFOBaA In-Reply-To: <20060724120701.GA32143@nic.fr> X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org For whatever reason, the working group decided not to adopt an XML format in favor of the record-jar format eventually used. There is not a current (up-to-date) XML version of the registry, although creating one would not be difficult. Best Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer@nic.fr] > Sent: lundi 24 juillet 2006 05:07 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] Registry in XML? > > I'm looking for a more structured version of the language subtag > registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry), > preferrably XML. Was it done already? Or should I write the schema and > the Python script myself? > > (At the APRICOT 2006 conference, David Conrad, IANA manager, announced > a project to rewrite all the IANA registries as XML files - they are > currently plain text. But I do not know if the project is still > considered?) > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 24 16:51:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G57Ob-0002ju-Uj; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:51:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G57Oa-0002jZ-Na; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:51:20 -0400 Received: from oak.neustar.com ([209.173.53.70]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G57OZ-0004gt-Ew; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:51:20 -0400 Received: from stiedprstage1.ietf.org (stiedprstage1.va.neustar.com [10.31.47.10]) by oak.neustar.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6OKpIp0010874 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:51:18 GMT Received: from ietf by stiedprstage1.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1G57OY-00021Y-AP; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:51:18 -0400 X-test-idtracker: no From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce Message-Id: Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:51:18 -0400 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: Internet Architecture Board , ltru mailing list , RFC Editor Subject: [Ltru] Protocol Action: 'Matching of Language Tags' to BCP X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Matching of Language Tags ' as a BCP This document is the product of the Language Tag Registry Update Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ted Hardie and Lisa Dusseault. A URL of this Internet-Draft is: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ltru-matching-15.txt Technical Summary This document describes a syntax, called a language-range, for specifying items in a user's language preferences, called a language priority list. It also describes different mechanisms for comparing and matching these to language tags. Two kinds of matching mechanisms, filtering and lookup, are defined. Filtering produces a (potentially empty) set of language tags, whereas lookup produces a single language tag. Possible applications include language negotiation or content selection. This document, in combination with draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14, will become BCP 47, replacing RFC 3066. Working Group Summary Working group support for this document is strong. There was one objection raised during IETF Last Call, related to the scope and applicability of the work. This objection had previously been considered and rejected in the working group. Protocol Quality This document was reviewed for the IESG by Ted Hardie. The PROTO shepherd was Martin Duerst. Note to RFC Editor In Section 2: OLD: In a language range, each subtag MUST either be a sequence of ASCII alphanumeric characters or the single character '*' (%2A, ASTERISK). The character '*' is a "wildcard" that matches any sequence of subtags. The meaning and uses of wildcards vary according to the type of language range. NEW: In a language range, each subtag MUST either be a sequence of ASCII alphanumeric characters or the single character '*' (%x2A, ASTERISK). The character '*' is a "wildcard" that matches any sequence of subtags. The meaning and uses of wildcards vary according to the type of language range. In Section 3.3.2 OLD: Split both the extended language range and the language tag being compared into a list of subtags by dividing on the hyphen (%2D) character. Two subtags match if either they are the same when compared case-insensitively or the language range's subtag is the wildcard '*'. NEW: Split both the extended language range and the language tag being compared into a list of subtags by dividing on the hyphen (%x2D) character. Two subtags match if either they are the same when compared case-insensitively or the language range's subtag is the wildcard '*'. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 24 18:36:46 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G592c-0004gr-5O; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:36:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G592a-0004gm-UM for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:36:44 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G592Y-0000rH-MO for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:36:44 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G592Y-0005I4-9C; Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:36:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 18:36:42 -0400 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Subject: Re: [Ltru] Registry in XML? Message-ID: <20060724223642.GU15703@ccil.org> References: <20060724120701.GA32143@nic.fr> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060724120701.GA32143@nic.fr> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Stephane Bortzmeyer scripsit: > I'm looking for a more structured version of the language subtag > registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry), > preferrably XML. Was it done already? Or should I write the schema and > the Python script myself? It's already very structured. A simple approach to generating XML from the record-jar format is to generate one element for each record and one child element for each line. You can't use attributes because some line types can repeat. -- Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan "Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? cowan@ccil.org Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused. --author unknown to me; any suggestions? _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 25 03:31:45 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5HOL-0005eL-40; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:31:45 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5HOJ-0005eF-Px for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:31:43 -0400 Received: from mta10.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.202]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5HOI-00075I-HI for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:31:43 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta10.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060725073141.WKTY22971.mta10.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 03:31:41 -0400 Message-ID: <005301c6afbc$5df81650$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:31:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Randy Presuhn wrote: > Do you want any of this to be considered as part of the potential work > on a 3066ter? If so, do you have specific language for inclusion in a > charter update proposal? (1) Yes, I do, and (2) I hope to have some specific language in the not-too-distant future. Detailed information on variant subtags is scattered all over draft-registry. (For "detailed" read "anything about variants that is not syntactical or exemplary.") I'd like some text --and I'll write it if necessary -- that says in effect: "The following types of language variations are suitable to be registered as variant subtags: "1. Transliterations and transcriptions "2. Orthographic reforms "3. Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1, -2, or -3 "4. Well-defined regional usage "5. etc." The key here is that the list would define certain types of variations that ARE DEFINITELY deemed suitable, so that when someone proposes a variant for California Surfer Dude English, the ietf-languages list can focus on the specific question of whether CSDE is sufficiently well-defined and constitutes a taggable distinction, not the meta-question of whether variants are the right vehicle for making that distinction. Right now we really only have two exemplar situations to go by: the German orthographic reform of 1996 (represented by "1901" and "1996") and two dialects of Slovenian ("nedis" and "rozaj"), and they don't provide much guidance and to whether other spelling reforms or dialects should be treated the same. Of course we might not think of all possible situations where variants might be appropriate, but we should at least be more firm about the ones we know. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 25 06:10:49 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5JsG-0001cU-Ml; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 06:10:48 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5JsF-0001Vh-E8 for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 06:10:47 -0400 Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5HwP-0000LM-6x for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:06:57 -0400 Received: from mta10.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.202]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5HqR-0005Qm-Pu for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:00:49 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta10.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060725080044.WVJY22971.mta10.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 04:00:44 -0400 Message-ID: <008701c6afc0$6aa88b10$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 01:00:37 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1 Subject: [Ltru] Re: Registry in XML? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison Phillips wrote: > For whatever reason, the working group decided not to adopt an XML > format in favor of the record-jar format eventually used. There is not > a current (up-to-date) XML version of the registry, although creating > one would not be difficult. The main reason for choosing record-jar over XML was that it would be lighter-weight and easier to read visually, and a simpler format against which to write a processor from scratch. We did not feel it was safe to assume that everyone had XML parsing capabilities available to them. Back in early 2005 when the Registry was planned to be in bar-delimited format, one record per line, and the XML discussion was taking place, I wrote a small proof-of-concept program to convert it into XML. This no longer works with the record-jar Registry, but as John Cowan points out, at least one of the possible XML implementations could be created fairly trivially. There is also the attributes vs. entities decision to be made (as always), and I don't necessarily agree that attributes could not be used at all; some properties of the Registry might lend themselves well to attributes: ... For RFC 3066ter, I would not support changing the format from record-jar to XML unless there were a general initiative to do so for all IANA registries; but in that case I would support it rather strongly. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 25 08:40:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5MD2-0006rp-0o; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:40:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5MD1-0006rk-0R for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:40:23 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5MCz-0002Tr-QP for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:40:22 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G5MCx-0001E9-CU; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:40:19 -0400 Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:40:19 -0400 To: Doug Ewell Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Registry in XML? Message-ID: <20060725124019.GA14716@ccil.org> References: <008701c6afc0$6aa88b10$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <008701c6afc0$6aa88b10$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Doug Ewell scripsit: > There is also the attributes vs. entities decision to be made (as > always), and I don't necessarily agree that attributes could not be used > at all; some properties of the Registry might lend themselves well to > attributes: Well, sure. -- We pledge allegiance to the penguin John Cowan and to the intellectual property regime cowan@ccil.org for which he stands, one world under http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Linux, with free music and open source software for all. --Julian Dibbell on Brazil, edited _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 25 11:53:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5PE1-0004tO-Vh; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:53:37 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5PE0-0004t3-PG for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:53:36 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.156]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5PDz-000779-9z for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:53:36 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6PFrNYd015672; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:53:23 +0100 Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6PFrFVo015219; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:53:22 +0100 Message-Id: <200607251553.k6PFrFVo015219@mta6.iomartmail.com> From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Doug Ewell'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:53:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <005301c6afbc$5df81650$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: Acavu37vux1hgutsRPO3bpSahKiVrQARkVSA X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: 'Doug Ewell' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Doug wrote: > "The following types of language variations are suitable to > be registered as variant subtags: > "1. Transliterations and transcriptions "2. Orthographic > reforms "3. Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1, > -2, or -3 "4. Well-defined regional usage "5. etc." If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. Best regards Debbie Garside > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@adelphia.net] > Sent: 25 July 2006 08:32 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards > > Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > Do you want any of this to be considered as part of the > potential work > > on a 3066ter? If so, do you have specific language for > inclusion in a > > charter update proposal? > > (1) Yes, I do, and (2) I hope to have some specific language > in the not-too-distant future. > > Detailed information on variant subtags is scattered all over > draft-registry. (For "detailed" read "anything about > variants that is not syntactical or exemplary.") I'd like > some text --and I'll write it if necessary -- that says in effect: > > "The following types of language variations are suitable to > be registered as variant subtags: > "1. Transliterations and transcriptions "2. Orthographic > reforms "3. Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1, > -2, or -3 "4. Well-defined regional usage "5. etc." > > The key here is that the list would define certain types of > variations that ARE DEFINITELY deemed suitable, so that when > someone proposes a variant for California Surfer Dude > English, the ietf-languages list can focus on the specific > question of whether CSDE is sufficiently well-defined and > constitutes a taggable distinction, not the meta-question of > whether variants are the right vehicle for making that distinction. > > Right now we really only have two exemplar situations to go > by: the German orthographic reform of 1996 (represented by > "1901" and "1996") and two dialects of Slovenian ("nedis" and > "rozaj"), and they don't provide much guidance and to whether > other spelling reforms or dialects should be treated the same. > > Of course we might not think of all possible situations where > variants might be appropriate, but we should at least be more > firm about the ones we know. > > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California, USA > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 25 18:25:05 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5VKr-0000Kd-GN; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:25:05 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5VKp-0000Gq-LB for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:25:03 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5VKn-00089N-7z for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 18:25:03 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1G5VKi-00042B-08 for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:24:56 +0200 Received: from pd9fba962.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.98]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:24:55 +0200 Received: from nobody by pd9fba962.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:24:55 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@lists.ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:19:07 +0200 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: <44C698DB.416B@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <005301c6afbc$5df81650$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba962.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Doug Ewell wrote: > "The following types of language variations are suitable to > be registered as variant subtags: [...] Good idea, maybe also some known counter examples. Saying "might be / might be not suitable" or similar, the review list should be free to make exceptions. Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Tue Jul 25 20:43:24 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5XUi-0006LJ-HE; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:43:24 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5XUh-0006LE-Na for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:43:23 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.183]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5XUf-0007sa-13 for ltru@ietf.org; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 20:43:23 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id t32so3263033pyc for ; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:43:20 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=O0Ims8CRJMFb3R6rlnszpanue13ZAzWIKMf6cVVekQRVkMoNryAfrLO/dcs+LsdGt6GGnwsVSj82xBF6+WrlXcQ7EKqPti6WFRvndcg2Kz6lHATgeMR97a9iRe+OQI4PwT6K4flkHVegD30bfe67iIVAxQu8TwPdboIeEUm3Ptg= Received: by 10.35.41.12 with SMTP id t12mr10472239pyj; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.67.20 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:43:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30b660a20607251743nbcd833lec9ca2bd3389bed4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:43:20 -0700 From: "Mark Davis" To: "Debbie Garside" Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards In-Reply-To: <200607251553.k6PFrFVo015219@mta6.iomartmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <005301c6afbc$5df81650$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> <200607251553.k6PFrFVo015219@mta6.iomartmail.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: 108a3c9224f756db X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 67c1ea29f88502ef6a32ccec927970f0 Cc: Doug Ewell , Doug Ewell , LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1005382018==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============1005382018== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_106322_31562342.1153874600568" ------=_Part_106322_31562342.1153874600568 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. Mark On 7/25/06, Debbie Garside wrote: > > Doug wrote: > > > "The following types of language variations are suitable to > > be registered as variant subtags: > > "1. Transliterations and transcriptions "2. Orthographic > > reforms "3. Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1, > > -2, or -3 "4. Well-defined regional usage "5. etc." > > If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I would > recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > Best regards > > Debbie Garside > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@adelphia.net] > > Sent: 25 July 2006 08:32 > > To: LTRU Working Group > > Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards > > > > Randy Presuhn wrote: > > > > > Do you want any of this to be considered as part of the > > potential work > > > on a 3066ter? If so, do you have specific language for > > inclusion in a > > > charter update proposal? > > > > (1) Yes, I do, and (2) I hope to have some specific language > > in the not-too-distant future. > > > > Detailed information on variant subtags is scattered all over > > draft-registry. (For "detailed" read "anything about > > variants that is not syntactical or exemplary.") I'd like > > some text --and I'll write it if necessary -- that says in effect: > > > > "The following types of language variations are suitable to > > be registered as variant subtags: > > "1. Transliterations and transcriptions "2. Orthographic > > reforms "3. Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1, > > -2, or -3 "4. Well-defined regional usage "5. etc." > > > > The key here is that the list would define certain types of > > variations that ARE DEFINITELY deemed suitable, so that when > > someone proposes a variant for California Surfer Dude > > English, the ietf-languages list can focus on the specific > > question of whether CSDE is sufficiently well-defined and > > constitutes a taggable distinction, not the meta-question of > > whether variants are the right vehicle for making that distinction. > > > > Right now we really only have two exemplar situations to go > > by: the German orthographic reform of 1996 (represented by > > "1901" and "1996") and two dialects of Slovenian ("nedis" and > > "rozaj"), and they don't provide much guidance and to whether > > other spelling reforms or dialects should be treated the same. > > > > Of course we might not think of all possible situations where > > variants might be appropriate, but we should at least be more > > firm about the ones we know. > > > > -- > > Doug Ewell > > Fullerton, California, USA > > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > ------=_Part_106322_31562342.1153874600568 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used.

Mark

On 7/25/06, Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> wrote:
Doug wrote:

> "The following types of language variations are suitable to
> be registered as variant subtags:
> "1.  Transliterations and transcriptions "2.  Orthographic
> reforms "3.  Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1,
> -2, or -3 "4.  Well-defined regional usage "5.  etc."

If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I would
recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also.

Best regards

Debbie Garside

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@adelphia.net]
> Sent: 25 July 2006 08:32
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Language and script encoding standards
>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>
> > Do you want any of this to be considered as part of the
> potential work
> > on a 3066ter?  If so, do you have specific language for
> inclusion in a
> > charter update proposal?
>
> (1) Yes, I do, and (2) I hope to have some specific language
> in the not-too-distant future.
>
> Detailed information on variant subtags is scattered all over
> draft-registry.  (For "detailed" read "anything about
> variants that is not syntactical or exemplary.")  I'd like
> some text --and I'll write it if necessary -- that says in effect:
>
> "The following types of language variations are suitable to
> be registered as variant subtags:
> "1.  Transliterations and transcriptions "2.  Orthographic
> reforms "3.  Well-defined dialects not covered in ISO 639-1,
> -2, or -3 "4.  Well-defined regional usage "5.  etc."
>
> The key here is that the list would define certain types of
> variations that ARE DEFINITELY deemed suitable, so that when
> someone proposes a variant for California Surfer Dude
> English, the ietf-languages list can focus on the specific
> question of whether CSDE is sufficiently well-defined and
> constitutes a taggable distinction, not the meta-question of
> whether variants are the right vehicle for making that distinction.
>
> Right now we really only have two exemplar situations to go
> by: the German orthographic reform of 1996 (represented by
> "1901" and "1996") and two dialects of Slovenian ("nedis" and
> "rozaj"), and they don't provide much guidance and to whether
> other spelling reforms or dialects should be treated the same.
>
> Of course we might not think of all possible situations where
> variants might be appropriate, but we should at least be more
> firm about the ones we know.
>
> --
> Doug Ewell
> Fullerton, California, USA
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

------=_Part_106322_31562342.1153874600568-- --===============1005382018== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1005382018==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 02:28:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5zMU-0003gl-OH; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:28:46 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5zMT-0003gg-El for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:28:45 -0400 Received: from mta13.mail.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.44] helo=mta13.adelphia.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5zMS-0002CL-3v for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:28:45 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060727062843.IWQB10992.mta13.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:28:43 -0400 Message-ID: <004501c6b145$e65a5fa0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:28:38 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Cc: Frank Ellermann Subject: [Ltru] Appropriate use of variants (was: Re: Language and script encoding standards) X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Frank Ellermann wrote: >> "The following types of language variations are suitable to >> be registered as variant subtags: > [...] > > Good idea, maybe also some known counter examples. Saying > "might be / might be not suitable" or similar, the review > list should be free to make exceptions. Excellent point. RFC 3066bis leaves the scope of potential uses for variants fairly wide open, but there are a few inappropriate uses. It might be a good idea to say, for instance, that a variant should not be proposed to denote a wholly independent language -- that's what 5- to 8-letter primary language subtags are for -- or to denote a script or region unless the appropriate measures have been taken with ISO 3166/MA or ISO 15924/RA. I also agree that the Reviewer, aided by the list, should have discretionary flexibility within the constraints of the document. (I prefer that to "making exceptions," which sounds a bit too open-ended and above-the-law.) The important point is that most of the time, the document should answer the meta-question "Is this a suitable use of a variant subtag?" in advance, so the Reviewer and list should not have to ask it. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 02:48:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5zfz-0002Lo-Q9; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:48:55 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5zfy-0002L0-9a for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:48:54 -0400 Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G5zfx-0006fB-16 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:48:54 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060727064848.NBAP4642.mta11.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 02:48:48 -0400 Message-ID: <005501c6b148$b4c8d4a0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 23:48:44 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 8abaac9e10c826e8252866cbe6766464 Subject: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encoding standards) X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mark Davis wrote: >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing of ISO 639-6 as it progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS, and the timing of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC 3066bis experience (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not give me great hope that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in a matter of a few months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6 might be ready sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO 639-6 in the 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes mention of ISO 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The effect of ISO 639-6 on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected purpose of the enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language subtags, just as 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags are "possibly for use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 10:33:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G66vN-00044U-BN; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:33:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G66vL-00044N-G1 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:33:15 -0400 Received: from mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G66vJ-0000jv-5H for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:33:15 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn2-10-72-76-c167.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.76.167]) by mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6REX2Y1057666; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:33:02 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=NMi3l4PlVmDcM7/ps+AGvKU5d+c5jisCRQi+P5odzFLoX+G1DkbUQy9RwXMi5ySx From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Doug Ewell'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Appropriate use of variants (was: Re: Language and scriptencoding standards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 07:33:02 -0700 Message-ID: <001801c6b189$91548870$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <004501c6b145$e65a5fa0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaxRe1gDh9vafxaTWaFXq6z+bHQxAAQh6NQ X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: f66b12316365a3fe519e75911daf28a8 Cc: 'Frank Ellermann' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org In my opinion, we should neither mention this in the charter nor expend = any great amount of effort on it. Section 2.2.5 (Variant) of the current document defines variants as = "used to indicate additional, well-recognized variations that define a = language or its dialects which are not covered by other available = subtags." We then go on to say in Section 3.6 (Possibilities for = Registration): -- Dialect or other divisions or variations within a language, its = orthography, writing system, regional or historical usage, = transliteration or other transformation, or distinguishing variation MAY = be registered as variant subtags. An example is the 'rozaj' subtag (the = Resian dialect of Slovenian). -- This is exactly the right level of distinction. We have some examples = and we don't spend a lot of time restricting the possibilities, given = that the range of variation in language is quite large. If anything were to be added it would be, as Frank suggests, a few = counter-examples. Variants are also not suitable (IMO) for charsets = [en-us-latin1], obscure private distinctions [es-MX-auntsally], = personal/individual identification [en-IE-joesmith], or transitory = variations [de-DE-worldcup]. Still, each of these items is something = that the list historically has been able to point out by itself. We = don't need additional language to spell this out. Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@adelphia.net]=20 > Sent: mercredi 26 juillet 2006 23:29 > To: LTRU Working Group > Cc: Frank Ellermann > Subject: [Ltru] Appropriate use of variants (was: Re:=20 > Language and scriptencoding standards) >=20 > Frank Ellermann wrote: >=20 > >> "The following types of language variations are suitable to > >> be registered as variant subtags: > > [...] > > > > Good idea, maybe also some known counter examples. Saying > > "might be / might be not suitable" or similar, the review > > list should be free to make exceptions. >=20 > Excellent point. RFC 3066bis leaves the scope of potential uses for=20 > variants fairly wide open, but there are a few inappropriate=20 > uses. It=20 > might be a good idea to say, for instance, that a variant=20 > should not be=20 > proposed to denote a wholly independent language -- that's what 5- to=20 > 8-letter primary language subtags are for -- or to denote a script or=20 > region unless the appropriate measures have been taken with=20 > ISO 3166/MA=20 > or ISO 15924/RA. >=20 > I also agree that the Reviewer, aided by the list, should have=20 > discretionary flexibility within the constraints of the document. (I=20 > prefer that to "making exceptions," which sounds a bit too open-ended=20 > and above-the-law.) The important point is that most of the=20 > time, the=20 > document should answer the meta-question "Is this a suitable use of a=20 > variant subtag?" in advance, so the Reviewer and list should=20 > not have to=20 > ask it. >=20 > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California, USA > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 11:40:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G67y0-00077U-FE; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:40:04 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G67xz-00076S-CR for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:40:03 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.181]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G67xy-0000VQ-0W for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 11:40:03 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id s49so325891pyc for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:40:01 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=YkcRHlptQOJg8p8rlHw7faruA+NqaSZhXa9Bbz/BxgEi97suaCJYBJZFNY4af/R6CLNhfwmMIHTWUz5VNcHThdfkjkucN8iwC6Gn94ZRDcPV6SFaz3wmhMSu+iLl6acpD09TWmC+YuYIhhk9bvLFQ/d3xrpfsQTfREq636UJU3c= Received: by 10.35.88.17 with SMTP id q17mr13339634pyl; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:40:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.67.20 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:40:00 -0700 From: "Mark Davis" To: "Doug Ewell" Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encoding standards) In-Reply-To: <005501c6b148$b4c8d4a0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <005501c6b148$b4c8d4a0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> X-Google-Sender-Auth: c8f3236c54d44822 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: d8ae4fd88fcaf47c1a71c804d04f413d Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1217742541==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============1217742541== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_144703_26511059.1154014800506" ------=_Part_144703_26511059.1154014800506 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags. Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but that case has not yet been made. Mark On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: > > Mark Davis wrote: > > >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I > >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. > > Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing of ISO 639-6 as it > progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS, and the timing > of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. > > Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC 3066bis experience > (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not give me great hope > that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in a matter of a few > months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6 might be ready > sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. > > Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO 639-6 in the > 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes mention of ISO > 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The effect of ISO 639-6 > on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected purpose of the > enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language subtags, just as > 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags are "possibly for > use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." > > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California, USA > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > ------=_Part_144703_26511059.1154014800506 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags.

Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but that case has not yet been made.

Mark

On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell <dewell@adelphia.net> wrote:
Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:

>> If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I
>> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also.
>
> As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a
> standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used.

Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing of ISO 639-6 as it
progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS, and the timing
of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path.

Two points come to mind here.  First, the 2-year RFC 3066bis experience
(so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not give me great hope
that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in a matter of a few
months, free from controversy and delay.  ISO 639-6 might be ready
sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame.

Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO 639-6 in the
3066ter charter.  Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes mention of ISO
639-3, which is not yet an approved standard.  The effect of ISO 639-6
on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected purpose of the
enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language subtags, just as
3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags are "possibly for
use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3."

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California, USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

------=_Part_144703_26511059.1154014800506-- --===============1217742541== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1217742541==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:04:34 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68Li-0005kS-EH; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:34 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68Lg-0005kL-Sz for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:32 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68Le-0001Zk-Lr for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:32 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G68Le-0006e5-Az; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:30 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:04:30 -0400 To: Mark Davis Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encoding standards) Message-ID: <20060727160430.GI3828@ccil.org> References: <005501c6b148$b4c8d4a0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mark Davis scripsit: > At this point I see no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to > language tags. > > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case for why > 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but that case has not > yet been made. This is a confusion of levels. If 639-6 isn't put in the LTRU charter, it can't even be *considered*. And as we have just painfully found out, premature discussion doesn't help: it just has to be done all over again (and indeed it may be harmful -- it gives certain elements an opportunity to claim that everything is rigged in advance). In short: we need to have 639-6 in the charter so that we can discuss it, even if we end up rejecting it. This is not like ISO 11179, where the very relevance turned out to be doubtful; no one can doubt that 693-6 is relevant to language tags. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan cowan@ccil.org Please leave your values Check your assumptions. In fact, at the front desk. check your assumptions at the door. --sign in Paris hotel --Cordelia Vorkosigan _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:09:26 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68QP-0002iV-Um; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:09:25 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68QO-0002i2-Sr for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:09:24 -0400 Received: from mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68QM-0004RE-Hy for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:09:24 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn2-10-72-76-c167.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.76.167]) by mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6RG98ZY069693; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:09:09 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=fJnQuoQKrtXZqhKqDCXvxlUKlThVPvdehSVpc+03NgQuvowKQ5bZNUoXDWG9MQzO From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Mark Davis'" , "'Doug Ewell'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:09:08 -0700 Message-ID: <002601c6b196$fe5a2850$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaxkvFmzqCSmmSFQrOjZWnZ4P+uHwAApMZA X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: c83ccb5cc10e751496398f1233ca9c3a Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org FWIW, we did reserve alpha4 primary subtags for ISO 639-6. But I agree = with Mark that it is far too early to commit to incorporating 639-6 into = the registry. What I would put into the charter would be text like this: -- The primary focus of this update is to incorporate changes to the ISO = 639 family of standards, specifically the adoption of ISO 639-3. ISO = 639-3 makes an approximately 7000 additional language codes available, = identifying many minority languages or dialects not previously = distinguished. These language codes will be used as an additional source = of primary language subtags, as well as the source for "extended = language" (extlang) subtags. The working group must decide how ISO 639-3 = codes are entered into the registry, what rules apply to associating a = code with the language and extlang subtag types, and any additional = rules or guidance on their adoption and use. The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how that = evolving work might relate to the future development of language tags. = Because this work is not mature, it might not appear in the document = produced by this working group. -- Best Regards, Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org]=20 > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 08:40 > To: Doug Ewell > Cc: LTRU Working Group > Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and=20 > script encodingstandards) >=20 > It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly=20 > designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see=20 > no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely=20 > expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see=20 > no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags.=20 >=20 > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case=20 > for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but=20 > that case has not yet been made. >=20 > Mark >=20 >=20 > On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: >=20 > Mark Davis wrote: > =09 > >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for=20 > RFC3066ter then I > >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > >=20 > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. > =09 > Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing=20 > of ISO 639-6 as it > progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS,=20 > and the timing > of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. > =09 > Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC=20 > 3066bis experience > (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not=20 > give me great hope=20 > that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in=20 > a matter of a few > months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6=20 > might be ready > sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. > =09 > Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO=20 > 639-6 in the=20 > 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes=20 > mention of ISO > 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The=20 > effect of ISO 639-6 > on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected=20 > purpose of the=20 > enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language=20 > subtags, just as > 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags=20 > are "possibly for > use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." > =09 > -- > Doug Ewell > Fullerton, California, USA > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > =09 > =09 > =09 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list=20 > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > =09 >=20 >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:20:26 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68b4-0002u8-Ii; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:20:26 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68b3-0002tw-8R for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:20:25 -0400 Received: from mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com ([216.109.112.27]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68b2-0005Q7-SN for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:20:25 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn2-10-72-76-c167.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.76.167]) by mrout1-b.corp.dcn.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6RGKDHv071352; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:20:14 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=so7EWLqMqbChL078X2XNec33prvNa9u/9gvBAwXd33DXZlnxHHWESaeYNBAvzacS From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Addison Phillips'" , "'Mark Davis'" , "'Doug Ewell'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:20:13 -0700 Message-ID: <002701c6b198$8a962980$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <002601c6b196$fe5a2850$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcaxkvFmzqCSmmSFQrOjZWnZ4P+uHwAApMZAAAB+uQA= X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 3fbd9b434023f8abfcb1532abaec7a21 Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Oh, and... My personal opinion, based on what I know about ISO 639-6, its approach, = goals, structure, and so forth, is that it probably is not a suitable = addition to the language subtag zoo. In many ways, 639-6 codes mirror = what 3066-family language tags already do (identifying script, regional, = and other variations within a language), with the complexity of = compressing the identifiers into an alpha4 namespace. Because these = codes duplicate, rather than complement, ISO 639-1/2/3 codes in meaning, = incorporating them would vastly complicate language tag choice and = matching algorithms, without apparent benefit to end-users. That said, I don't know enough about ISO 639-6 to definitively say these = things today: the foregoing is an impression and not a conclusion. Thus = I support mentioning studying 639-6 in a 3066ter time frame, with no = concrete deliverable promised, but I tend to expect that the sole = support for it would be continuing this line in the ABNF for language = tags: / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. =20 > -----Original Message----- > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com]=20 > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 09:09 > To: 'Mark Davis'; 'Doug Ewell' > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and=20 > scriptencodingstandards) >=20 > FWIW, we did reserve alpha4 primary subtags for ISO 639-6.=20 > But I agree with Mark that it is far too early to commit to=20 > incorporating 639-6 into the registry. >=20 > What I would put into the charter would be text like this: >=20 > -- > The primary focus of this update is to incorporate changes to=20 > the ISO 639 family of standards, specifically the adoption of=20 > ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 makes an approximately 7000 additional=20 > language codes available, identifying many minority languages=20 > or dialects not previously distinguished. These language=20 > codes will be used as an additional source of primary=20 > language subtags, as well as the source for "extended=20 > language" (extlang) subtags. The working group must decide=20 > how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the registry, what rules=20 > apply to associating a code with the language and extlang=20 > subtag types, and any additional rules or guidance on their=20 > adoption and use. >=20 > The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether=20 > or how that evolving work might relate to the future=20 > development of language tags. Because this work is not=20 > mature, it might not appear in the document produced by this=20 > working group. > -- >=20 > Best Regards, >=20 > Addison >=20 > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. >=20 > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. =20 >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org]=20 > > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 08:40 > > To: Doug Ewell > > Cc: LTRU Working Group > > Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and=20 > > script encodingstandards) > >=20 > > It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly=20 > > designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see=20 > > no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely=20 > > expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see=20 > > no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags.=20 > >=20 > > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case=20 > > for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but=20 > > that case has not yet been made. > >=20 > > Mark > >=20 > >=20 > > On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: > >=20 > > Mark Davis wrote: > > =09 > > >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for=20 > > RFC3066ter then I > > >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > >=20 > > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > > > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. > > =09 > > Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing=20 > > of ISO 639-6 as it > > progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS,=20 > > and the timing > > of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. > > =09 > > Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC=20 > > 3066bis experience > > (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not=20 > > give me great hope=20 > > that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in=20 > > a matter of a few > > months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6=20 > > might be ready > > sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. > > =09 > > Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO=20 > > 639-6 in the=20 > > 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes=20 > > mention of ISO > > 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The=20 > > effect of ISO 639-6 > > on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected=20 > > purpose of the=20 > > enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language=20 > > subtags, just as > > 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags=20 > > are "possibly for > > use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." > > =09 > > -- > > Doug Ewell > > Fullerton, California, USA > > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > =09 > > =09 > > =09 > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list=20 > > Ltru@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > =09 > >=20 > >=20 > >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru >=20 >=20 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:27:21 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68hk-0006sh-Hl; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:20 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68hj-0006qB-Ur for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:19 -0400 Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.155]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68hh-000614-4g for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:27:19 -0400 Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RGR3xl016983; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:03 +0100 Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RGQuIT016830; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:27:02 +0100 Message-Id: <200607271627.k6RGQuIT016830@mta5.iomartmail.com> From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Mark Davis'" , "'Doug Ewell'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:26:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: Acaxkge/RCO9lD+hSF2X1ZjLzbijtwABLglA In-Reply-To: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb93e867a11a29ac1dc5018706b412ac Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0504336733==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============0504336733== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_022C_01C6B1A1.DC1962A0" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_022C_01C6B1A1.DC1962A0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mark wrote: > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but that case has not yet been made. The essence of the case is the need to tag more accurately and I am sure that this will cause a huge debate. The question "what is a language" is pertinent. Many dialects have significantly different vocabularies and some have different writing systems (especially historically). Whether these aspects of the standard are relevant to Internet Standards/RFCs etc is something that needs to be discussed at some stage. I agree with you that as 639-6 is technically at CD stage (moves to DIS after Beijing in August - voting was positive on the CD ballot) perhaps it would be a little premature to have the discussion now. However, I also agree with Doug. It depends on how long a time span you envisage for RFC3066ter as to whether it would be prudent to at least mention 639-6 within the Charter. As to complications, the change of direction in the research methods and compilation of the supporting data since December 2005 means that there is no duplication between the codes of ISO 639-3 and the hierarchical system of ISO 639-6. If there is a need for more granular tags it should prove relatively easy to slot 639-6 alpha-4s into the Primary Language Subtag position - a position that is currently reserved for them. Best regards Debbie _____ From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] Sent: 27 July 2006 16:40 To: Doug Ewell Cc: LTRU Working Group Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags. Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but that case has not yet been made. Mark On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: Mark Davis wrote: >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter then I >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing of ISO 639-6 as it progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS, and the timing of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC 3066bis experience (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not give me great hope that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in a matter of a few months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6 might be ready sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO 639-6 in the 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes mention of ISO 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The effect of ISO 639-6 on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected purpose of the enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language subtags, just as 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags are "possibly for use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru ------=_NextPart_000_022C_01C6B1A1.DC1962A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mark wrote:
 
> Of = course, Debbie=20 and others can certainly present their case for why 639-6 adds value and = won't=20 cause complications, but that case has not yet been made.
 
The=20 essence of the case is the need to tag more accurately and I am sure = that=20 this will cause a huge debate.  The question "what is a = language" is=20 pertinent.  Many dialects have significantly different vocabularies = and=20 some have different writing systems (especially historically).  = Whether=20 these aspects of the standard are relevant to Internet Standards/RFCs = etc is=20 something that needs to be discussed at some stage.
 
I=20 agree with you that as 639-6 is technically at CD stage (moves to DIS = after=20 Beijing in August - voting was positive on the CD ballot) perhaps it = would be a=20 little premature to have the discussion now. However, I also agree with=20 Doug.  It depends on how long a time span you envisage for = RFC3066ter as to=20 whether it would be prudent to at least mention 639-6 within the=20 Charter.
 
As to=20 complications, the change of direction in the research methods and = compilation=20 of the supporting data since December 2005 means that there is no=20 duplication between the codes of ISO 639-3 and the hierarchical system = of ISO=20 639-6.  If there is a need for more granular tags it=20 should prove relatively easy to slot 639-6 alpha-4s into the = Primary=20 Language Subtag position - a position that is currently reserved for=20 them.
 
Best=20 regards
 
Debbie

 

From: Mark Davis=20 [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org]
Sent: 27 July 2006=20 16:40
To: Doug Ewell
Cc: LTRU Working=20 Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language = and script=20 encodingstandards)

It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is = explicitly=20 designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see no need = to=20 mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely expect to incorporate it = in some=20 fashion. At this point I see no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 = to=20 language tags.

Of course, Debbie and others can certainly = present=20 their case for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but = that=20 case has not yet been made.

Mark

On 7/26/06, Doug=20 Ewell <dewell@adelphia.net>=20 wrote:
Mark=20 Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org>=20 wrote:

>> If this discussion is included in the Charter = for=20 RFC3066ter then I
>> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be = included=20 also.
>
> As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even = once it=20 becomes a
> standard, it is a matter of debate whether it = should be=20 used.

Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing = of ISO=20 639-6 as it
progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to = IS, and=20 the timing
of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own = path.

Two=20 points come to mind here.  First, the 2-year RFC 3066bis=20 experience
(so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not = give me=20 great hope
that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF = in a=20 matter of a few
months, free from controversy and = delay.  ISO=20 639-6 might be ready
sooner than we think, relative to the = 3066ter time=20 frame.

Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO = 639-6 in=20 the
3066ter charter.  Look at the 3066bis charter; it = makes=20 mention of ISO
639-3, which is not yet an approved=20 standard.  The effect of ISO 639-6
on RFC 3066ter might = simply=20 be to firm up the projected purpose of the
enigmatic "future = use"=20 4-letter primary language subtags, just as
3066bis broadly hints = that=20 extended-language subtags are "possibly for
use with certain = anticipated=20 features of ISO 639-3."

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, = California,=20 USA
http://users.adelphia.net/~de= well/



_______________________________________________<= BR>Ltru=20 mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.or= g/mailman/listinfo/ltru

------=_NextPart_000_022C_01C6B1A1.DC1962A0-- --===============0504336733== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============0504336733==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:34:42 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68os-00044n-Nh; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:34:42 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68oq-00044i-Ug for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:34:40 -0400 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68on-0006eV-Dr for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:34:40 -0400 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id s49so350484pyc for ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:34:37 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=VKpGt4+5isWmpn76VFQe4nH+YlLdhiCokubTq4is3rTFCoWmDl59GRar4L6RhgnB64ROWyEHuKRNfdIshLfTcV+BNvwZiWcrpNP/rEGjr4/MfK7Dd4fra8p3vknOw176bylgJZT3GfsYNfKTPlWscH7GPOSNJJAH2OkuA5THLVw= Received: by 10.35.107.20 with SMTP id j20mr13382801pym; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.67.20 with HTTP; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30b660a20607270934q35c8088aw918c2d05db651e17@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:34:36 -0700 From: "Mark Davis" To: "Addison Phillips" Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) In-Reply-To: <002601c6b196$fe5a2850$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> <002601c6b196$fe5a2850$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> X-Google-Sender-Auth: eca3174be205c823 X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2e8fc473f5174be667965460bd5288ba Cc: Doug Ewell , LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1106929653==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============1106929653== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_146199_5035139.1154018076840" ------=_Part_146199_5035139.1154018076840 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I agree with that approach, but the last bit needs to be even more tentative, something like: The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how that evolving work might relate to the future development of language tags. Because this work is not mature and may not be suitable for inclusion, it might not appear in the document produced by this working group. Mark On 7/27/06, Addison Phillips wrote: > > FWIW, we did reserve alpha4 primary subtags for ISO 639-6. But I agree > with Mark that it is far too early to commit to incorporating 639-6 into the > registry. > > What I would put into the charter would be text like this: > > -- > The primary focus of this update is to incorporate changes to the ISO 639 > family of standards, specifically the adoption of ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 makes > an approximately 7000 additional language codes available, identifying many > minority languages or dialects not previously distinguished. These language > codes will be used as an additional source of primary language subtags, as > well as the source for "extended language" (extlang) subtags. The working > group must decide how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the registry, what > rules apply to associating a code with the language and extlang subtag > types, and any additional rules or guidance on their adoption and use. > > The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how that > evolving work might relate to the future development of language tags. > Because this work is not mature, it might not appear in the document > produced by this working group. > -- > > Best Regards, > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 08:40 > > To: Doug Ewell > > Cc: LTRU Working Group > > Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and > > script encodingstandards) > > > > It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly > > designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see > > no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely > > expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see > > no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags. > > > > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case > > for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but > > that case has not yet been made. > > > > Mark > > > > > > On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: > > > > Mark Davis wrote: > > > > >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for > > RFC3066ter then I > > >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > > > > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > > > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. > > > > Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing > > of ISO 639-6 as it > > progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS, > > and the timing > > of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. > > > > Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC > > 3066bis experience > > (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not > > give me great hope > > that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in > > a matter of a few > > months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6 > > might be ready > > sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. > > > > Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO > > 639-6 in the > > 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes > > mention of ISO > > 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The > > effect of ISO 639-6 > > on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected > > purpose of the > > enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language > > subtags, just as > > 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags > > are "possibly for > > use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." > > > > -- > > Doug Ewell > > Fullerton, California, USA > > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > > > > > ------=_Part_146199_5035139.1154018076840 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline I agree with that approach, but the last bit needs to be even more tentative, something like:

The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how that evolving work might relate to the future development of language tags. Because this work is not mature and may not be suitable for inclusion, it might not appear in the document produced by this working group.

Mark

On 7/27/06, Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com > wrote:
FWIW, we did reserve alpha4 primary subtags for ISO 639-6. But I agree with Mark that it is far too early to commit to incorporating 639-6 into the registry.

What I would put into the charter would be text like this:

--
The primary focus of this update is to incorporate changes to the ISO 639 family of standards, specifically the adoption of ISO 639-3. ISO 639-3 makes an approximately 7000 additional language codes available, identifying many minority languages or dialects not previously distinguished. These language codes will be used as an additional source of primary language subtags, as well as the source for "extended language" (extlang) subtags. The working group must decide how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the registry, what rules apply to associating a code with the language and extlang subtag types, and any additional rules or guidance on their adoption and use.

The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how that evolving work might relate to the future development of language tags. Because this work is not mature, it might not appear in the document produced by this working group.
--

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org]
> Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 08:40
> To: Doug Ewell
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and
> script encodingstandards)
>
> It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly
> designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I see
> no need to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely
> expect to incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see
> no value, only problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags.
>
> Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case
> for why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but
> that case has not yet been made.
>
> Mark
>
>
> On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell <dewell@adelphia.net> wrote:
>
>       Mark Davis <mark dot davis at icu dash project dot org> wrote:
>
>       >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for
> RFC3066ter then I
>       >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also.
>       >
>       > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a
>       > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used.
>
>       Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing
> of ISO 639-6 as it
>       progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS,
> and the timing
>       of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path.
>
>       Two points come to mind here.  First, the 2-year RFC
> 3066bis experience
>       (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not
> give me great hope
>       that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in
> a matter of a few
>       months, free from controversy and delay.  ISO 639-6
> might be ready
>       sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame.
>
>       Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO
> 639-6 in the
>       3066ter charter.  Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes
> mention of ISO
>       639-3, which is not yet an approved standard.  The
> effect of ISO 639-6
>       on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected
> purpose of the
>       enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language
> subtags, just as
>       3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags
> are "possibly for
>       use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3."
>
>       --
>       Doug Ewell
>       Fullerton, California, USA
>       http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
>       _______________________________________________
>       Ltru mailing list
>       Ltru@ietf.org
>       https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>


------=_Part_146199_5035139.1154018076840-- --===============1106929653== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1106929653==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:40:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68u6-00089e-7L; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68u4-00088c-Vb for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:04 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68u3-0006rk-OP for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:04 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G68u3-0007rC-6g; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:40:03 -0400 To: Debbie Garside Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) Message-ID: <20060727164002.GK3828@ccil.org> References: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> <200607271627.k6RGQuIT016830@mta5.iomartmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200607271627.k6RGQuIT016830@mta5.iomartmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3 Cc: 'Doug Ewell' , 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Debbie Garside scripsit: > As to complications, the change of direction in the research methods and > compilation of the supporting data since December 2005 means that there > is no duplication between the codes of ISO 639-3 and the hierarchical > system of ISO 639-6. The concern is not (or no longer) about conflict between 639-6 codes and 639-3 codes, but between 639-6 codes and RFC 3066 *tags* as a whole. They cover the same semantic space (representations of arbitrarily fine-grained distinctions between language varieties), but RFC 3066bis tags are analyzable, whereas 639-6 codes are not, unless you have the hierarchy information handy. There's no simple way to see that a given 639-6 code is or is not equivalent to some language-script-country-variant tag; furthermore, it's a big question what, if anything, it means to specify a 639-6 code with script-country-variant following. All of which is a fine example of the "premature discussion" I mentioned in my previous posting. So let's get 639-6 into the charter so that Addison can properly argue against it. -- On the Semantic Web, it's too hard to prove John Cowan cowan@ccil.org you're not a dog. --Bill de hOra http://www.ccil.org/~cowan _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:45:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68zm-0004K5-Fg; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:45:58 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68zl-0004K0-9W for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:45:57 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.156]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G68zj-0007dh-Js for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:45:57 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RGjnC6010542; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:45:49 +0100 Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RGjha2010457; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:45:48 +0100 Message-Id: <200607271645.k6RGjha2010457@mta6.iomartmail.com> From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Addison Phillips'" , "'Mark Davis'" , "'Doug Ewell'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:45:43 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcaxkvFmzqCSmmSFQrOjZWnZ4P+uHwAApMZAAAB+uQAAARdX0A== In-Reply-To: <002701c6b198$8a962980$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 140baa79ca42e6b0e2b4504291346186 Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison wrote: > Because > these codes duplicate, rather than complement, ISO 639-1/2/3 > codes in meaning, incorporating them would vastly complicate > language tag choice and matching algorithms, without apparent > benefit to end-users. There is no duplication of codes between ISO 639-1/2B/2T/3/5 and ISO 639-6 Best regards Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > Sent: 27 July 2006 17:20 > To: 'Addison Phillips'; 'Mark Davis'; 'Doug Ewell' > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 > > Oh, and... > > My personal opinion, based on what I know about ISO 639-6, > its approach, goals, structure, and so forth, is that it > probably is not a suitable addition to the language subtag > zoo. In many ways, 639-6 codes mirror what 3066-family > language tags already do (identifying script, regional, and > other variations within a language), with the complexity of > compressing the identifiers into an alpha4 namespace. Because > these codes duplicate, rather than complement, ISO 639-1/2/3 > codes in meaning, incorporating them would vastly complicate > language tag choice and matching algorithms, without apparent > benefit to end-users. > > That said, I don't know enough about ISO 639-6 to > definitively say these things today: the foregoing is an > impression and not a conclusion. Thus I support mentioning > studying 639-6 in a 3066ter time frame, with no concrete > deliverable promised, but I tend to expect that the sole > support for it would be continuing this line in the ABNF for > language tags: > > / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 09:09 > > To: 'Mark Davis'; 'Doug Ewell' > > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and > > scriptencodingstandards) > > > > FWIW, we did reserve alpha4 primary subtags for ISO 639-6. > > But I agree with Mark that it is far too early to commit to > > incorporating 639-6 into the registry. > > > > What I would put into the charter would be text like this: > > > > -- > > The primary focus of this update is to incorporate changes > to the ISO > > 639 family of standards, specifically the adoption of ISO > 639-3. ISO > > 639-3 makes an approximately 7000 additional language codes > available, > > identifying many minority languages or dialects not previously > > distinguished. These language codes will be used as an additional > > source of primary language subtags, as well as the source for > > "extended language" (extlang) subtags. The working group > must decide > > how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the registry, what > rules apply to > > associating a code with the language and extlang subtag > types, and any > > additional rules or guidance on their adoption and use. > > > > The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how > > that evolving work might relate to the future development > of language > > tags. Because this work is not mature, it might not appear in the > > document produced by this working group. > > -- > > > > Best Regards, > > > > Addison > > > > Addison Phillips > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > > > Internationalization is an architecture. > > It is not a feature. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > > > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 08:40 > > > To: Doug Ewell > > > Cc: LTRU Working Group > > > Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script > > > encodingstandards) > > > > > > It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly > > > designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I > see no need > > > to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely expect to > > > incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see no > value, only > > > problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags. > > > > > > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present their case for > > > why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but that case > > > has not yet been made. > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: > > > > > > Mark Davis wrote: > > > > > > >> If this discussion is included in the Charter for RFC3066ter > > > then I > > > >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > > > > > > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even once it becomes a > > > > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it should be used. > > > > > > Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing > of ISO 639-6 > > > as it > > > progresses along the path from CD to DIS to FDIS to IS, and the > > > timing > > > of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. > > > > > > Two points come to mind here. First, the 2-year RFC 3066bis > > > experience > > > (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not > give me great > > > hope > > > that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in > a matter of > > > a few > > > months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6 > might be ready > > > sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter time frame. > > > > > > Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO > > > 639-6 in the > > > 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes > mention of > > > ISO > > > 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The > effect of ISO > > > 639-6 > > > on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected > purpose of > > > the > > > enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language > subtags, just as > > > 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags > are "possibly > > > for > > > use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." > > > > > > -- > > > Doug Ewell > > > Fullerton, California, USA > > > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ltru mailing list > > > Ltru@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 12:52:36 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6969-0007g7-UJ; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:52:33 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6969-0007fz-7t for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:52:33 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.156]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6968-0008HI-Hv for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 12:52:33 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RGqQmF018612; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:26 +0100 Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RGqLJX018451; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:25 +0100 Message-Id: <200607271652.k6RGqLJX018451@mta6.iomartmail.com> From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Debbie Garside'" , "'Addison Phillips'" , "'Mark Davis'" , "'Doug Ewell'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:52:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcaxkvFmzqCSmmSFQrOjZWnZ4P+uHwAApMZAAAB+uQAAARdX0AAAMf0Q In-Reply-To: <200607271645.k6RGjha2010457@mta6.iomartmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: dd7e0c3fd18d19cffdd4de99a114001d Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I wrote: > There is no duplication of codes between ISO 639-1/2B/2T/3/5 > and ISO 639-6 To make my meaning clearer: There is no alpha4 allocated for linguistic entities that are already coded within ISO 639-1/2B/2T/3/5. Best regards Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk] > Sent: 27 July 2006 17:46 > To: 'Addison Phillips'; 'Mark Davis'; 'Doug Ewell' > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 > > Addison wrote: > > > Because > > these codes duplicate, rather than complement, ISO > 639-1/2/3 codes in > > meaning, incorporating them would vastly complicate language tag > > choice and matching algorithms, without apparent benefit to > end-users. > > There is no duplication of codes between ISO 639-1/2B/2T/3/5 > and ISO 639-6 > > Best regards > > Debbie > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > > Sent: 27 July 2006 17:20 > > To: 'Addison Phillips'; 'Mark Davis'; 'Doug Ewell' > > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 > > > > Oh, and... > > > > My personal opinion, based on what I know about ISO 639-6, its > > approach, goals, structure, and so forth, is that it > probably is not a > > suitable addition to the language subtag zoo. In many ways, 639-6 > > codes mirror what 3066-family language tags already do (identifying > > script, regional, and other variations within a language), with the > > complexity of compressing the identifiers into an alpha4 namespace. > > Because these codes duplicate, rather than complement, ISO > 639-1/2/3 > > codes in meaning, incorporating them would vastly > complicate language > > tag choice and matching algorithms, without apparent benefit to > > end-users. > > > > That said, I don't know enough about ISO 639-6 to definitively say > > these things today: the foregoing is an impression and not a > > conclusion. Thus I support mentioning studying 639-6 in a > 3066ter time > > frame, with no concrete deliverable promised, but I tend to expect > > that the sole support for it would be continuing this line > in the ABNF > > for language tags: > > > > / 4ALPHA ; reserved for future use > > > > Addison > > > > Addison Phillips > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > > > Internationalization is an architecture. > > It is not a feature. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > > > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 09:09 > > > To: 'Mark Davis'; 'Doug Ewell' > > > Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' > > > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and > > > scriptencodingstandards) > > > > > > FWIW, we did reserve alpha4 primary subtags for ISO 639-6. > > > But I agree with Mark that it is far too early to commit to > > > incorporating 639-6 into the registry. > > > > > > What I would put into the charter would be text like this: > > > > > > -- > > > The primary focus of this update is to incorporate changes > > to the ISO > > > 639 family of standards, specifically the adoption of ISO > > 639-3. ISO > > > 639-3 makes an approximately 7000 additional language codes > > available, > > > identifying many minority languages or dialects not previously > > > distinguished. These language codes will be used as an additional > > > source of primary language subtags, as well as the source for > > > "extended language" (extlang) subtags. The working group > > must decide > > > how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the registry, what > > rules apply to > > > associating a code with the language and extlang subtag > > types, and any > > > additional rules or guidance on their adoption and use. > > > > > > The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and > whether or how > > > that evolving work might relate to the future development > > of language > > > tags. Because this work is not mature, it might not appear in the > > > document produced by this working group. > > > -- > > > > > > Best Regards, > > > > > > Addison > > > > > > Addison Phillips > > > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > > > > > Internationalization is an architecture. > > > It is not a feature. > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] > > > > Sent: jeudi 27 juillet 2006 08:40 > > > > To: Doug Ewell > > > > Cc: LTRU Working Group > > > > Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script > > > > encodingstandards) > > > > > > > > It is more than that. The structure of 3066bis is explicitly > > > > designed with 639-3 in mind, with the extlang subtags. I > > see no need > > > > to mention 639-6 in the charter unless we truely expect to > > > > incorporate it in some fashion. At this point I see no > > value, only > > > > problems, in adding 639-6 to language tags. > > > > > > > > Of course, Debbie and others can certainly present > their case for > > > > why 639-6 adds value and won't cause complications, but > that case > > > > has not yet been made. > > > > > > > > Mark > > > > > > > > > > > > On 7/26/06, Doug Ewell wrote: > > > > > > > > Mark Davis dot org> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> If this discussion is included in the > Charter for RFC3066ter > > > > then I > > > > >> would recommend that ISO CD 639-6 be included also. > > > > > > > > > > As a CD, it's definitely out of scope. Even > once it becomes a > > > > > standard, it is a matter of debate whether it > should be used. > > > > > > > > Timing will become a key criterion here -- the timing > > of ISO 639-6 > > > > as it > > > > progresses along the path from CD to DIS to > FDIS to IS, and the > > > > timing > > > > of RFC 3066ter as it progresses along its own path. > > > > > > > > Two points come to mind here. First, the > 2-year RFC 3066bis > > > > experience > > > > (so far -- we still don't have RFC numbers) does not > > give me great > > > > hope > > > > that 3066ter will just whiz through the WG and IETF in > > a matter of > > > > a few > > > > months, free from controversy and delay. ISO 639-6 > > might be ready > > > > sooner than we think, relative to the 3066ter > time frame. > > > > > > > > Second, Debbie was only talking about mentioning ISO > > > > 639-6 in the > > > > 3066ter charter. Look at the 3066bis charter; it makes > > mention of > > > > ISO > > > > 639-3, which is not yet an approved standard. The > > effect of ISO > > > > 639-6 > > > > on RFC 3066ter might simply be to firm up the projected > > purpose of > > > > the > > > > enigmatic "future use" 4-letter primary language > > subtags, just as > > > > 3066bis broadly hints that extended-language subtags > > are "possibly > > > > for > > > > use with certain anticipated features of ISO 639-3." > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Doug Ewell > > > > Fullerton, California, USA > > > > http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Ltru mailing list > > > > Ltru@ietf.org > > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Ltru mailing list > > > Ltru@ietf.org > > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Ltru mailing list > > Ltru@ietf.org > > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 13:12:45 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69Pg-00080W-P7; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:12:44 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69Pf-0007xK-HO for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:12:43 -0400 Received: from mrout3.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69Pe-0001CZ-73 for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:12:43 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout3.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6RHCN62036336; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:12:23 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=afKBu+Vpuq4Anzhv+VHTR36XSUOnlUFwQTAD556iUCSjbPRMT2InptU92dxB2ksn From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Mark Davis'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:12:23 -0700 Message-ID: <000c01c6b19f$d3a91db0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <30b660a20607270934q35c8088aw918c2d05db651e17@mail.gmail.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: Acaxmo8RUJ/E9Z4KQm++1hAzP4Iz8AABQkmw X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: 'Doug Ewell' , 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > Because this work is not mature > and may not be suitable for inclusion, it might not appear in > the document produced by this working group. > That phrasing seems better to me. Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 13:33:22 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69je-0007z0-Ke; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:33:22 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69jd-0007yu-9n for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:33:21 -0400 Received: from mrout3.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69jb-0003VH-Ts for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:33:21 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout3.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6RHWlP1042625; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:32:47 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: content-type:content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=ovminMFa8vsB3QFQiFzQDnYZTEslNLBIbb9u8oheE0A+GTsms6fVuHT4yL+gCFzM From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'John Cowan'" , "'Debbie Garside'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and scriptencodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:32:47 -0700 Message-ID: <000f01c6b1a2$ad10de60$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <20060727164002.GK3828@ccil.org> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: Acaxm1uDGRINgSeESGychC2X8MoZxwABH64Q X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 52e1467c2184c31006318542db5614d5 Cc: 'Doug Ewell' , 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org John Cowan pointed out that: > > The concern is not (or no longer) about conflict between 639-6 codes > and 639-3 codes, but between 639-6 codes and RFC 3066 *tags* > as a whole. > They cover the same semantic space (representations of arbitrarily > fine-grained distinctions between language varieties), but RFC 3066bis > tags are analyzable, whereas 639-6 codes are not, unless you have > the hierarchy information handy. I agree that this is, perhaps, the main concern, given the "change in direction". But there is also the immediate concern for language tag users of subtag choice. If 'enxx' is narrower than 'en', which should I used to form my language tag? Are these codes not in conflict on some level, since they both represent some form of "English"? A hierarchy is a very different beast than a flat namespace. Comparing the two leads to lots of interesting questions. A good look at the finished product seems like a precondition to me. > > All of which is a fine example of the "premature discussion" > I mentioned > in my previous posting. So let's get 639-6 into the charter so that > Addison can properly argue against it. > +1 Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Thu Jul 27 13:42:28 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69sS-0000LG-Gk; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:42:28 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69sR-0000LB-LC for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:42:27 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.156]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G69sQ-00047e-7B for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:42:27 -0400 Received: from mta6.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RHgA1g010624; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:42:10 +0100 Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta6.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6RHg6Vf010508; Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:42:10 +0100 Message-Id: <200607271742.k6RHg6Vf010508@mta6.iomartmail.com> From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Addison Phillips'" , "'John Cowan'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and scriptencodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 18:42:05 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: Acaxm1uDGRINgSeESGychC2X8MoZxwABH64QAADeFTA= In-Reply-To: <000f01c6b1a2$ad10de60$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b4a0a5f5992e2a4954405484e7717d8c Cc: 'Doug Ewell' , 'LTRU Working Group' X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Addison wrote: > A good look at the finished product seems like a precondition to me. I will be releasing data tables displaying approximately 30-40% of the product prior to the TC37 meeting in Beijing (August 22nd). Will send a link when it is online. That said, the data released at that time will still need to go through various verification procedures and thus will not be stable. Best regards Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > Sent: 27 July 2006 18:33 > To: 'John Cowan'; 'Debbie Garside' > Cc: 'Doug Ewell'; 'LTRU Working Group' > Subject: RE: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and > scriptencodingstandards) > > John Cowan pointed out that: > > > > The concern is not (or no longer) about conflict between > 639-6 codes > > and 639-3 codes, but between 639-6 codes and RFC 3066 *tags* as a > > whole. > > They cover the same semantic space (representations of arbitrarily > > fine-grained distinctions between language varieties), but > RFC 3066bis > > tags are analyzable, whereas 639-6 codes are not, unless > you have the > > hierarchy information handy. > > I agree that this is, perhaps, the main concern, given the > "change in direction". But there is also the immediate > concern for language tag users of subtag choice. If 'enxx' is > narrower than 'en', which should I used to form my language > tag? Are these codes not in conflict on some level, since > they both represent some form of "English"? > > A hierarchy is a very different beast than a flat namespace. > Comparing the two leads to lots of interesting questions. A > good look at the finished product seems like a precondition to me. > > > > > All of which is a fine example of the "premature discussion" > > I mentioned > > in my previous posting. So let's get 639-6 into the > charter so that > > Addison can properly argue against it. > > > +1 > > Addison > > Addison Phillips > Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. > > Internationalization is an architecture. > It is not a feature. > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 01:38:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6L3i-0005bB-DK; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:38:50 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6L3h-0005b5-9u for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:38:49 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6L3g-00056E-2p for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:38:49 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060728053847.YNEV16535.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:38:47 -0400 Message-ID: <001901c6b208$1709f990$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encoding standards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:38:43 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I fully agree that the appropriate question to discuss right now is whether the new charter should *allow* discussions about the pros and cons of adding ISO 639-6-based subtags, *when the time comes to have those discussions*. We need not, and indeed should not, conduct those discussions now. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 01:44:40 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6L9M-0001CO-V6; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:44:40 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6L9L-00017x-LO for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:44:39 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6L9K-00065k-Do for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:44:39 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060728054437.YQSS16535.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:44:37 -0400 Message-ID: <001b01c6b208$e7ea91f0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <200607271742.k6RHg6Vf010508@mta6.iomartmail.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and scriptencodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 22:44:33 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Debbie Garside wrote: >> A good look at the finished product seems like a precondition to me. > > I will be releasing data tables displaying approximately 30-40% of the > product prior to the TC37 meeting in Beijing (August 22nd). Will send > a link when it is online. That said, the data released at that time > will still need to go through various verification procedures and thus > will not be stable. This will be absolutely invaluable for making any sort of rational and informed decision about whether the ISO 639-6 "peg" will fit into the RFC 3066bis "hole." I am eagerly awaiting a first look at these sample tables, and personally I'm not making any decision about whether the peg and hole are well matched until I've had a chance to sit down and play with them. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 01:53:50 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6LID-0006ZE-VX; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:53:49 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6LID-0006Z8-06 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:53:49 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6LIB-0007YE-Px for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:53:48 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G6LIB-0005y6-Ej; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:53:47 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 01:53:47 -0400 To: Doug Ewell Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encoding standards) Message-ID: <20060728055347.GA30165@ccil.org> References: <001901c6b208$1709f990$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001901c6b208$1709f990$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 1ac7cc0a4cd376402b85bc1961a86ac2 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Doug Ewell scripsit: > I fully agree that the appropriate question to discuss right now is > whether the new charter should *allow* discussions about the pros and > cons of adding ISO 639-6-based subtags, *when the time comes to have > those discussions*. We need not, and indeed should not, conduct those > discussions now. Just so. And I say that the charter should allow such discussions, because the relevance (as distinct from the desirability) of ISO 639-6 is beyond question. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org "Not to know The Smiths is not to know K.X.U." --K.X.U. _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 02:18:15 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Lfq-00082R-V7; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:18:14 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Lfp-00080I-Ug for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:18:13 -0400 Received: from mta13.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.44]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Lfo-0003Sk-KZ for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:18:13 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta13.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060728061809.IFUP10992.mta13.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:18:09 -0400 Message-ID: <003601c6b20d$8c18eac0$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: <30b660a20607270840s6b9714c4ida10fbb6ddd820de@mail.gmail.com> <002601c6b196$fe5a2850$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> <30b660a20607270934q35c8088aw918c2d05db651e17@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Ltru] ISO CD 639-6 (was: Re: Language and script encodingstandards) Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:17:45 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mark Davis wrote: > I agree with that approach, but the last bit needs to be even more > tentative, something like: > > The working group should also consider ISO 639-6 and whether or how > that evolving work might relate to the future development of language > tags. Because this work is not mature and may not be suitable for > inclusion, it might not appear in the document produced by this > working group. That's fine, but I don't think it would be productive to be any more tentative than that ("it probably will not appear in the document"). If the work really isn't suitable for inclusion, this will surely come out in the discussions. We have to trust ourselves to make a good decision. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 02:52:26 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6MCw-0005Ml-IJ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:52:26 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6MCv-0005Mg-PS for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:52:25 -0400 Received: from virtual3.netaktiv.com ([80.67.170.53] helo=mail.bortzmeyer.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6MCu-0007HK-Gk for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 02:52:25 -0400 Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 3C9D4240814; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:52:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 2189C1062E; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:49:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:49:07 +0200 From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: LTRU Working Group Message-ID: <20060728064907.GA14856@sources.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-Transport: UUCP rules X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Subject: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org 4.3.2. Truncation of Language Tags says: Tag to truncate: zh-Hant-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1 1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile Isn't it a typo? The truncation should not change the script, only remove the last subtag, "private1". I know it is late to report a typo but, since the RFC is not yet published, may be it is still time to fix it? _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 04:41:47 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Nul-00052X-L4; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:41:47 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Nuj-00052S-Rj for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:41:45 -0400 Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Nug-00070D-5i for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:41:45 -0400 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k6S8faxQ017719; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:41:36 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 2aeb_e10b3a10_1e14_11db_9a68_0014221f2a2d; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:41:35 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.7/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6S8fY9l016697; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:41:34 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:41:01 +0900 To: LTRU Working Group From: Martin Duerst Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: fb6060cb60c0cea16e3f7219e40a0a81 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Charter update proposal X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Dear LTRU WG, As you know, we have completed all the goals and milestones in our current charter (at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html), but as recent discussion has shown, we think that we should do some more work. The IETF closes a WG when it thinks that its work is done, but if additional work is identified or the current work plan has to be changed, a RECHARTER is done (see e.g. http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02763.html). Based on the input on the mailing list, and with some detailled feedback from Randy, I have prepared a draft for the new charter. Any comments are welcome, but please note that ultimately, what goes into a charter and what not is the decision of the ADs and the IESG. Also, please note that on purpose, I have kept the draft quite terse. This reflects the fact that the work on the registry document is supposed to be minor compared with what we have done so far. It is also based on the understanding that whether a particular subject or detail is up for discussion or not is not determined by whether it is mentioned in the charter or not, but by whether the reason and the way we deal with it fits within the limits given by the charter. So below please find the "Description" and "Milestones" parts of the charter. The 'front' part of the charter (chairs/ADs/ mailing lists) are assumed to stay as is. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Description of the Working Group: The primary language tags allowed by the current IANA language subtag registry are limited to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in the same way as they were limited by RFC 3066. This covers approximately 400 (??) possible language codes. ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes and language variant codes. The working group will work on an update to the language subtag registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. The working group will also deliver means to update the current IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. The working group may make adjustments to the registration process and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based on ongoing registration and operational experience and such adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work. Work on the drafts is planned to start before ISO 639-3 is fully approved and published. However, the WG will not finalize the drafts before ISO 639-3 is fully approved. Goals and Milestones: September 2006 Submit first WG draft of registry procedure update September 2006 Submit first WG draft of registry data update January 2007 Submit registry procedure update draft for IETF Last Call January 2007 Submit registry data update draft for IETF Last Call ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 04:58:07 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6OAY-00025a-OF; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:58:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6OAX-00025V-Cg for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:58:05 -0400 Received: from scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.194]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6OAU-00014E-Nz for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 04:58:05 -0400 Received: from scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse2 [133.2.253.17]) by scmailgw1.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k6S8w1hg023140; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:58:01 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse2.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 2aee_2c563446_1e17_11db_9856_0014221f2a2d; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:58:01 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.7/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6S8vvUI016927; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:57:57 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060728174903.09a2a820@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 17:55:26 +0900 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer , LTRU Working Group From: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt? In-Reply-To: <20060728064907.GA14856@sources.org> References: <20060728064907.GA14856@sources.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b19722fc8d3865b147c75ae2495625f2 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hello Stephane, Many thanks for your message. The typo you point out below was reported by Erik van der Poel in Oct 2005 (see http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03953.html), and it was/will be handled as an "AUTH48" correction before the RFC is published. Regards, Martin. At 15:49 06/07/28, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >4.3.2. Truncation of Language Tags > >says: > > Tag to truncate: zh-Hant-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1 > 1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile > >Isn't it a typo? The truncation should not change the script, only >remove the last subtag, "private1". > >I know it is late to report a typo but, since the RFC is not yet >published, may be it is still time to fix it? > >_______________________________________________ >Ltru mailing list >Ltru@ietf.org >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 08:16:25 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6RGT-0005iu-Jf; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:16:25 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6RGS-0005iF-DD for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:16:24 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6RGR-0005WW-3Q for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:16:24 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1G6RG5-0001qS-UC for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:16:01 +0200 Received: from pd9fba953.dip0.t-ipconnect.de ([217.251.169.83]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:16:01 +0200 Received: from nobody by pd9fba953.dip0.t-ipconnect.de with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:16:01 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@lists.ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:12:47 +0200 Organization: Lines: 12 Message-ID: <44C9FF3F.5F3B@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: pd9fba953.dip0.t-ipconnect.de X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Re: Charter update proposal X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Martin Duerst wrote: > The working group will work on an update to the language > subtag registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter > codes from ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags > as appropriate. Do you mean "variant" here, or should that be "extended" ? If it's really "variant" I've no clue what you have in mind. Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 09:47:13 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SgK-0006mZ-U4; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:47:12 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SgJ-0006mS-RS for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:47:11 -0400 Received: from mailb.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.8] helo=mail3.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SgE-0007DC-Dg for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:47:11 -0400 Received: from mailout5.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.148]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2725); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:47:05 -0700 Received: from RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.154]) by mailout5.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2725); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:47:05 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt? Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:46:07 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060728174903.09a2a820@localhost> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt? Thread-Index: AcayI/Z49qSHbgf6QhG+pHs8IrI5wgAKCI/w From: "Peter Constable" To: "Martin Duerst" , "Stephane Bortzmeyer" , "LTRU Working Group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2006 13:47:05.0412 (UTC) FILETIME=[4FE23040:01C6B24C] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4d87d2aa806f79fed918a62e834505ca Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org But his msg didn't indicate the appropriate fix. I assume it was = understood that the starting tag should have had Latn rather than Hant? Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:55 AM > To: Stephane Bortzmeyer; LTRU Working Group > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt? >=20 > Hello Stephane, >=20 > Many thanks for your message. The typo you point out below > was reported by Erik van der Poel in Oct 2005 (see > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg03953.html), > and it was/will be handled as an "AUTH48" correction before the > RFC is published. >=20 > Regards, Martin. >=20 > At 15:49 06/07/28, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >4.3.2. Truncation of Language Tags > > > >says: > > > > Tag to truncate: zh-Hant-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile-private1 > > 1. zh-Latn-CN-variant1-a-extend1-x-wadegile > > > >Isn't it a typo? The truncation should not change the script, only > >remove the last subtag, "private1". > > > >I know it is late to report a typo but, since the RFC is not yet > >published, may be it is still time to fix it? > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Ltru mailing list > >Ltru@ietf.org > >https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru >=20 >=20 > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp = mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 09:52:18 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SlG-0007gY-JE; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:52:18 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SlF-0007gS-Qm for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:52:17 -0400 Received: from maila.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.7] helo=mail2.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SlE-00084n-Dx for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 09:52:17 -0400 Received: from mailout6.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.150]) by mail2.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:52:15 -0700 Received: from RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.154]) by mailout6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:52:14 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 06:52:10 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Thread-Index: AcayIarlwmiXkYxUQxSIchLNGbODJwAKrxKQ From: "Peter Constable" To: "LTRU Working Group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2006 13:52:14.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[08646160:01C6B24D] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 6e922792024732fb1bb6f346e63517e4 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org One small comment: 639-3 won't make any codes available that would get = used as variant subtags. It will make available codes that we expect = will get used as extlang subtags. I'm guessing the number of additional codes that would get added is = around 6,800 (I think there was approx 7200 total in the draft code = table of which approx 400 are in 639-2). Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 1:41 AM > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: [Ltru] Charter update proposal >=20 > Dear LTRU WG, >=20 > As you know, we have completed all the goals and milestones > in our current charter > (at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html), > but as recent discussion has shown, we think that we > should do some more work. The IETF closes a WG when it > thinks that its work is done, but if additional work > is identified or the current work plan has to be changed, > a RECHARTER is done (see e.g. > = http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02763.html= ). >=20 > Based on the input on the mailing list, and with some detailled > feedback from Randy, I have prepared a draft for the new charter. > Any comments are welcome, but please note that ultimately, what > goes into a charter and what not is the decision of the ADs and > the IESG. >=20 > Also, please note that on purpose, I have kept the draft quite > terse. This reflects the fact that the work on the registry > document is supposed to be minor compared with what we have > done so far. It is also based on the understanding that whether > a particular subject or detail is up for discussion or not is not > determined by whether it is mentioned in the charter or not, but > by whether the reason and the way we deal with it fits within > the limits given by the charter. >=20 > So below please find the "Description" and "Milestones" parts > of the charter. The 'front' part of the charter (chairs/ADs/ > mailing lists) are assumed to stay as is. >=20 > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Description of the Working Group: >=20 > The primary language tags allowed by the current IANA language > subtag registry are limited to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in the > same way as they were limited by RFC 3066. This covers > approximately 400 (??) possible language codes. > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, > will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes > and language variant codes. >=20 > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from > ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. > The working group will also deliver means to update the current > IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. >=20 > The working group may make adjustments to the registration process > and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based > on ongoing registration and operational experience and such > adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work. >=20 > Work on the drafts is planned to start before ISO 639-3 is fully > approved and published. However, the WG will not finalize the drafts > before ISO 639-3 is fully approved. >=20 >=20 > Goals and Milestones: >=20 > September 2006 Submit first WG draft of registry procedure update > September 2006 Submit first WG draft of registry data update >=20 > January 2007 Submit registry procedure update draft for IETF Last = Call > January 2007 Submit registry data update draft for IETF Last Call > = ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >=20 > Regards, Martin. >=20 >=20 > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp = mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 10:02:55 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SvW-00030k-TF; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:02:54 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SvW-00030G-J4 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:02:54 -0400 Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6SvU-0001Va-VB for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:02:54 -0400 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id m2so816736uge for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:02:52 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=TMZwbC27iPQljHn+nkmiM1wa4rszHbcXvKkSb+Tab4z4mTxY2307IdtyFwqg9+Fpb3k98sH7s6Qzg/hmsuoVsUemvJb9eb0zC384eEZPEo6dUBCW37nYBr6j1SuuRqByn7o/qt8z3PmarzKuYq3EFZIzzmRUcpNfvSg9imIIQRw= Received: by 10.82.109.19 with SMTP id h19mr619643buc; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.67.20 with HTTP; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:02:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <30b660a20607280702i225b0785r401da213c80972c5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:02:51 -0700 From: "Mark Davis" To: "Martin Duerst" Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> X-Google-Sender-Auth: f8c2f2326bcb9219 X-Spam-Score: 0.5 (/) X-Scan-Signature: b2809b6f39decc6de467dcf252f42af1 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1589427490==" Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org --===============1589427490== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_12063_31776814.1154095371717" ------=_Part_12063_31776814.1154095371717 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Something along these lines looks good. A couple wording items: The working group may make adjustments to the registration process and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based on ongoing registration and operational experience and such adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work. => The working group may make adjustments to the registration process and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based on ongoing registration and operational experience. It may also clarify some of the text. Such adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work. On 7/28/06, Martin Duerst wrote: > > Dear LTRU WG, > > As you know, we have completed all the goals and milestones > in our current charter > (at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html), > but as recent discussion has shown, we think that we > should do some more work. The IETF closes a WG when it > thinks that its work is done, but if additional work > is identified or the current work plan has to be changed, > a RECHARTER is done (see e.g. > http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02763.html > ). > > Based on the input on the mailing list, and with some detailled > feedback from Randy, I have prepared a draft for the new charter. > Any comments are welcome, but please note that ultimately, what > goes into a charter and what not is the decision of the ADs and > the IESG. > > Also, please note that on purpose, I have kept the draft quite > terse. This reflects the fact that the work on the registry > document is supposed to be minor compared with what we have > done so far. It is also based on the understanding that whether > a particular subject or detail is up for discussion or not is not > determined by whether it is mentioned in the charter or not, but > by whether the reason and the way we deal with it fits within > the limits given by the charter. > > So below please find the "Description" and "Milestones" parts > of the charter. The 'front' part of the charter (chairs/ADs/ > mailing lists) are assumed to stay as is. > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Description of the Working Group: > > The primary language tags allowed by the current IANA language > subtag registry are limited to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in the > same way as they were limited by RFC 3066. This covers > approximately 400 (??) possible language codes. > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, > will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes > and language variant codes. > > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from > ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. > The working group will also deliver means to update the current > IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. > > The working group may make adjustments to the registration process > and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based > on ongoing registration and operational experience and such > adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work. > > Work on the drafts is planned to start before ISO 639-3 is fully > approved and published. However, the WG will not finalize the drafts > before ISO 639-3 is fully approved. > > > Goals and Milestones: > > September 2006 Submit first WG draft of registry procedure update > September 2006 Submit first WG draft of registry data update > > January 2007 Submit registry procedure update draft for IETF Last Call > January 2007 Submit registry data update draft for IETF Last Call > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Regards, Martin. > > > #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University > #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp > > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > ------=_Part_12063_31776814.1154095371717 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Something along these lines looks good. A couple wording items:

The working group may make adjustments to the registration process
and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based
on ongoing registration and operational experience and such
adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work.
=>
The working group may make adjustments to the registration process
and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based
on ongoing registration and operational experience. It may also clarify
some of the text. Such
adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work.

On 7/28/06, Martin Duerst < duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
Dear LTRU WG,

As you know, we have completed all the goals and milestones
in our current charter
(at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html),
but as recent discussion has shown, we think that we
should do some more work. The IETF closes a WG when it
thinks that its work is done, but if additional work
is identified or the current work plan has to be changed,
a RECHARTER is done (see e.g.
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02763.html).

Based on the input on the mailing list, and with some detailled
feedback from Randy, I have prepared a draft for the new charter.
Any comments are welcome, but please note that ultimately, what
goes into a charter and what not is the decision of the ADs and
the IESG.

Also, please note that on purpose, I have kept the draft quite
terse. This reflects the fact that the work on the registry
document is supposed to be minor compared with what we have
done so far. It is also based on the understanding that whether
a particular subject or detail is up for discussion or not is not
determined by whether it is mentioned in the charter or not, but
by whether the reason and the way we deal with it fits within
the limits given by the charter.

So below please find the "Description" and "Milestones" parts
of the charter. The 'front' part of the charter (chairs/ADs/
mailing lists) are assumed to stay as is.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Description of the Working Group:

The primary language tags allowed by the current IANA language
subtag registry are limited to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in the
same way as they were limited by RFC 3066. This covers
approximately 400 (??) possible language codes.
ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006,
will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes
and language variant codes.

The working group will work on an update to the language subtag
registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from
ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate.
The working group will also deliver means to update the current
IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes.

The working group may make adjustments to the registration process
and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based
on ongoing registration and operational experience and such
adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work.

Work on the drafts is planned to start before ISO 639-3 is fully
approved and published. However, the WG will not finalize the drafts
before ISO 639-3 is fully approved.


Goals and Milestones:

September 2006   Submit first WG draft of registry procedure update
September 2006   Submit first WG draft of registry data update

January   2007   Submit registry procedure update draft for IETF Last Call
January   2007   Submit registry data update draft for IETF Last Call
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regards,    Martin.


#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#   http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

------=_Part_12063_31776814.1154095371717-- --===============1589427490== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru --===============1589427490==-- From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 10:04:04 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Swe-0007Kg-9D; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:04:04 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Swd-0007Kb-R1 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:04:03 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Swc-0001dk-Kc for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:04:03 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G6Swa-0007Yz-6T; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:04:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:04:00 -0400 To: Martin Duerst Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Message-ID: <20060728140400.GD30165@ccil.org> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 Cc: LTRU Working Group X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Martin Duerst scripsit: > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from > ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. > The working group will also deliver means to update the current > IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. Proposed replacement: The working group will work on an update to the language subtag registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or extlang subtags as appropriate. Special attention will be given to the matter of sign languages. The working group will also deliver means to update the current IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. You should also add in Addison's language on 639-6. -- Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun" cowan@ccil.org _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 10:25:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6TH0-0002XP-PZ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:25:06 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6TH0-0002Vi-37 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:25:06 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6TGx-0003Z6-Q3 for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:25:06 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060728142459.LOXD16535.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:24:59 -0400 Message-ID: <002501c6b251$8355ef20$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 07:24:17 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Peter Constable wrote: > One small comment: 639-3 won't make any codes available that would get > used as variant subtags. It will make available codes that we expect > will get used as extlang subtags. Agreed. We will probably want to use "extended language" in the charter instead of the jargony "extlang" with which we are comfortable. > I'm guessing the number of additional codes that would get added is > around 6,800 (I think there was approx 7200 total in the draft code > table of which approx 400 are in 639-2). The current Registry has 488 primary language subtags. My preliminary mockup of an RFC 3066ter Registry includes 7,194 primary language subtags and 354 extlang subtags, for a total of 7,548, or an increase of 7,060 over the status quo. Note that this does not include any of the ISO 639-3 code elements for sign languages, which will have to be their own topic of discussion, though this may not need to be stated in the brief charter text. I also note that the words "tags" and "codes," mostly in the first paragraph, should be changed to "subtags" as appropriate. Suggested rewording of the first two paragraphs:: ----- The primary language subtags allowed by the current IANA Language Subtag Registry are limited to ISO 639-1 and ISO 639-2 in the same way as they were limited by RFC 3066. This covers approximately 500 possible language subtags. ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, will make available around 7000 more primary language subtags and extended language subtags. The working group will work on an update to the Language Subtag Registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from ISO 639-3 as primary language subtags or extended language subtags as appropriate. The working group will also deliver means to update the current IANA Language Subtag Registry with the newly available subtags. ----- -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 11:05:02 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Tte-00062d-PJ; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:05:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Ttd-00062V-4u for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:05:01 -0400 Received: from maila.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.6] helo=mail1.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Ttb-0001Lt-RD for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:05:01 -0400 Received: from mailout6.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.150]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:04:59 -0700 Received: from RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.154]) by mailout6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:04:56 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 08:04:01 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20060728140400.GD30165@ccil.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Thread-Index: AcayTrRgMtzCTsD8RfyPDSwRbuF6IwACB+Sw From: "Peter Constable" To: "LTRU Working Group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Jul 2006 15:04:56.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[30083160:01C6B257] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 4adaf050708fb13be3316a9eee889caa X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org In addition to signed languages, I'd like to see us discussing = transliterations and transcriptions. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 7:04 AM > To: Martin Duerst > Cc: LTRU Working Group > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal >=20 > Martin Duerst scripsit: >=20 > > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from > > ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. > > The working group will also deliver means to update the current > > IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. >=20 > Proposed replacement: >=20 > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from > ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or extlang subtags as appropriate. > Special attention will be given to the matter of sign languages. > The working group will also deliver means to update the current > IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. >=20 > You should also add in Addison's language on 639-6. >=20 > -- > Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. > Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. = (3x) > Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, > hoopsa! > -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun" cowan@ccil.org >=20 > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 11:06:17 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Tur-0007Wm-UH; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:06:17 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Tuq-0007Wh-IB for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:06:16 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6Tup-0001RE-Bc for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:06:16 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G6Tup-0001A9-2w; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:06:15 -0400 Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:06:15 -0400 To: Peter Constable Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Message-ID: <20060728150615.GF30165@ccil.org> References: <20060728140400.GD30165@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Peter Constable scripsit: > In addition to signed languages, I'd like to see us discussing > transliterations and transcriptions. +1 -- I don't know half of you half as well John Cowan as I should like, and I like less than half cowan@ccil.org of you half as well as you deserve. http://www.ccil.org/~cowan --Bilbo _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 11:38:58 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6UQU-0008Bp-Au; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:38:58 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6UQT-0008Bb-5r for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:38:57 -0400 Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.155]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6UQR-00084V-NL for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 11:38:57 -0400 Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6SFcs7T005228; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:38:54 +0100 Received: from debbie (ictbarn.gotadsl.co.uk [213.208.115.6]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6SFcrCN005184; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:38:54 +0100 From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Peter Constable'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:40:52 +0100 Message-ID: <086701c6b25c$3581c430$0400a8c0@debbie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 Thread-Index: AcayTrRgMtzCTsD8RfyPDSwRbuF6IwACB+SwAAFXaWA= In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org +1 -----Original Message----- From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com] Sent: 28 July 2006 16:04 To: LTRU Working Group Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal In addition to signed languages, I'd like to see us discussing transliterations and transcriptions. Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] > Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 7:04 AM > To: Martin Duerst > Cc: LTRU Working Group > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal > > Martin Duerst scripsit: > > > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from ISO > > 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. > > The working group will also deliver means to update the current IANA > > language subtag registry with the newly available codes. > > Proposed replacement: > > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from ISO 639-3 > as primary subtags or extlang subtags as appropriate. > Special attention will be given to the matter of sign languages. > The working group will also deliver means to update the current IANA > language subtag registry with the newly available codes. > > You should also add in Addison's language on 639-6. > > -- > Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. Deshil Holles eamus. > Send us, bright one, light one, Horhorn, quickening, and wombfruit. > (3x) Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, boyaboy, hoopsa! Hoopsa, > boyaboy, hoopsa! > -- Joyce, Ulysses, "Oxen of the Sun" cowan@ccil.org > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Fri Jul 28 16:44:57 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6ZCX-00029i-G7; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:44:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6ZCX-00029Z-5g for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:44:53 -0400 Received: from mrout1.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.171]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6ZCV-00065s-Lu for ltru@ietf.org; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:44:53 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (duringperson-lx.corp.yahoo.com [172.21.37.80]) by mrout1.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6SKiZcu046249; Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:44:36 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:in-reply-to:x-mimeole:thread-index; b=jN3SED69ti4aoyCcC6nIv9FxHAC7rnTLgBLXPoT4sFhkYGULZTq5O44RPpJuzwpO From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Martin Duerst'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:44:35 -0700 Message-ID: <000601c6b286$a34cd0c0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20060726163255.05cb0cf0@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcayIaw9ay2jXs1GRiC/WNM37zw11QATzH1Q X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Hello Martin, Thank you for doing this. Unless notes, I am "+1" to everything you said in your message. Specific comments follow. Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: Martin Duerst [mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp] > Sent: vendredi 28 juillet 2006 01:41 > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, > will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes > and language variant codes. As noted by others, this sentence should say something else. However, I'm convinced that the comments so far go in the wrong direction. In our jargon, the term "codes" refers to codes in ISO 639, not to subtags. I would thus propose we say: -- ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, will make available around 7000 additional codes for identifying languages. -- > > The working group will work on an update to the language subtag (Editorial) I would replace the phrase "work on" with "prepare" or "create". > registry procedures to allow the use of 3-letter codes from > ISO 639-3 as primary subtags or variant subtags as appropriate. As noted by others, replace 'variant' with 'extended language'. > The working group will also deliver means to update the current > IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes. I would change this to be slightly more expansive: -- The working group will also deliver a means to update the current IANA language subtag registry with the newly available codes, as well as procedures for maintaining the registry as codes are assigned or modified in the future. -- Or you might consider using a separate sentence, such as the one I proposed yesterday: -- The working group must decide how ISO 639-3 codes are entered into the registry, what rules apply to associating a code with the language and/or extlang subtag types, and any additional rules or guidance on their adoption and use. -- > > The working group may make adjustments to the registration process > and the form of the registry if this is deemed appropriate based > on ongoing registration and operational experience and such > adjustments are not expected to delay the progress of the work. (Editorial) This is a bit of a run-on sentence. Please break it into two setences between 'experience' and 'such'. I wouldn't oppose including some version of (Mark's version of) my ISO 639-6 text here ;-). > > Work on the drafts is planned to start before ISO 639-3 is fully > approved and published. However, the WG will not finalize the drafts > before ISO 639-3 is fully approved. I'm not sure that's correct. It would be more appropriate to say "Publication of the draft(s) as an RFC will depend on final approval of ISO 639-3." There is ample space in the RFC Editor process for awaiting specific external events (as we've already discovered). We might well finalize an update to draft-registry quite quickly, but not the actual registry update ("draft-initial"). _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 02:28:06 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6iIs-0000qx-41; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:28:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6iIq-0000qs-Ty for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:28:00 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6iIp-0000lx-Je for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:28:00 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060729062754.CLXG16535.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 02:27:54 -0400 Message-ID: <003801c6b2d8$1e586f30$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" References: Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 23:27:50 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 93238566e09e6e262849b4f805833007 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Peter Constable wrote: > In addition to signed languages, I'd like to see us discussing > transliterations and transcriptions. and John Cowan and Debbie Garside promptly replied: > +1 Transliterations and transcriptions would be represented with variant subtags, right? A few days ago I suggested that we make the RFC more explicit about the intended purposes of variants, and that suggestion ended up getting flayed with a cat o' nine tails. I'm glad Peter's more specific suggestion is receiving better support. +1 -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 03:14:56 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6j2D-0004ZU-E3; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:14:53 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6j2C-0004ZP-GX for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:14:52 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.229.2] helo=ciao.gmane.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6j2A-0000sS-Sf for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 03:14:52 -0400 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1G6j28-0006nN-PW for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:14:48 +0200 Received: from 212.82.251.97 ([212.82.251.97]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:14:48 +0200 Received: from nobody by 212.82.251.97 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:14:48 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: ltru@lists.ietf.org From: Frank Ellermann Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:10:22 +0200 Organization: Lines: 18 Message-ID: <44CB09DE.5173@xyzzy.claranet.de> References: <6.0.0.20.2.20060728174903.09a2a820@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.82.251.97 X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0 (OS/2; U) X-Spam-Score: 1.6 (+) X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126 Cc: Subject: [Ltru] Re: Typo in draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt? X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Peter Constable wrote: > I assume it was understood that the starting tag should have > had Latn rather than Hant? Sure, first the authors checked it, then the AD offered to add it in an RfC editor note, therefore I checked it after some strange effect elsewhere with an RfC editor note, then the AD checked it again because he knew that JFC would check it, then JFC decided that it's good enough for another appeal, so the whole IESG checked it again, and now I'm not sure, did the IAB also check it ? It must be one of the most checked typos in the IETF history. See the end of https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=print_ballot&ballot_id=1811&filename=draft-ietf-ltru-registry Bye, Frank _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 12:12:53 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rQp-0005sb-A7; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:12:51 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rQo-0005sW-Vn for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:12:50 -0400 Received: from mail1.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.6]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rQm-0003rH-KP for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:12:50 -0400 Received: from mailout6.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.150]) by mail1.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:12:48 -0700 Received: from RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.154]) by mailout6.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:12:47 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:12:34 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <000601c6b286$a34cd0c0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Thread-Index: AcayIaw9ay2jXs1GRiC/WNM37zw11QATzH1QACyavaA= From: "Peter Constable" To: "LTRU Working Group" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Jul 2006 16:12:47.0966 (UTC) FILETIME=[D543CFE0:01C6B329] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 2409bba43e9c8d580670fda8b695204a X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, > > will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes > > and language variant codes. >=20 > As noted by others, this sentence should say something else. However, = I'm > convinced that the comments so far go in the wrong direction. In our > jargon, > the term "codes" refers to codes in ISO 639, not to subtags. I would = thus > propose we say: >=20 > -- > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, will make > available around 7000 additional codes for identifying languages. If we really wanted to nitpick on terminology... ISO 639-3 will add = *one* language code. That language code will include language = identifiers for around 7000 additional languages. (That's the correct = ISO-speak.) Peter _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 12:22:02 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rZi-0004MY-E2; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:22:02 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rZh-0004MN-Im for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rZg-0004aH-By for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:22:01 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G6rZg-0007sD-1O; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:22:00 -0400 Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:22:00 -0400 To: Peter Constable Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Message-ID: <20060729162159.GG11277@ccil.org> References: <000601c6b286$a34cd0c0$9fcd15ac@ds.corp.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Peter Constable scripsit: > If we really wanted to nitpick on terminology... ISO 639-3 will > add *one* language code. That language code will include language > identifiers for around 7000 additional languages. (That's the correct > ISO-speak.) But not correct RFC-speak, in which "code" is used to mean the two- and three-letter items when being treated independently. We probably should add to the charter an opportunity to reconcile our terminology for talking about ISO standards with the terminology used by the standard itself. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan [R]eversing the apostolic precept to be all things to all men, I usually [before Darwin] defended the tenability of the received doctrines, when I had to do with the [evolution]ists; and stood up for the possibility of [evolution] among the orthodox -- thereby, no doubt, increasing an already current, but quite undeserved, reputation for needless combativeness. --T. H. Huxley _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 12:29:17 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rgh-0006H9-HW; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:29:15 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rgf-0006H1-FI for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:29:13 -0400 Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com ([62.128.193.155]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6rge-0004tQ-1w for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:29:13 -0400 Received: from mta5.iomartmail.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6TGTBnx009345; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:29:11 +0100 Received: from DebbieLaptop (i-83-67-121-192.freedom2surf.net [83.67.121.192]) (authenticated bits=0) by mta5.iomartmail.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k6TGSp01009030; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:29:10 +0100 Message-Id: <200607291629.k6TGSp01009030@mta5.iomartmail.com> From: "Debbie Garside" To: "'Peter Constable'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 17:28:52 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Thread-Index: AcayIaw9ay2jXs1GRiC/WNM37zw11QATzH1QACyavaAAAgG7kA== In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 82c9bddb247d9ba4471160a9a865a5f3 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I think there is some variance in the terminology used within ISO 639-3 and the RFC. I would propose: ---- The ISO 639-3 code, due to be published in 2006, will make available approximately 6,800 additional subtags for identifying linguistic entities. ---- Best regards Debbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com] > Sent: 29 July 2006 17:13 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal > > > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > > > > > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of > 2006, will make > > > available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes > and language > > > variant codes. > > > > As noted by others, this sentence should say something > else. However, > > I'm convinced that the comments so far go in the wrong > direction. In > > our jargon, the term "codes" refers to codes in ISO 639, not to > > subtags. I would thus propose we say: > > > > -- > > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, > will make > > available around 7000 additional codes for identifying languages. > > If we really wanted to nitpick on terminology... ISO 639-3 > will add *one* language code. That language code will include > language identifiers for around 7000 additional languages. > (That's the correct ISO-speak.) > > > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 12:51:29 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6s2D-00020U-4m; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:51:29 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6s2B-00020P-Ae for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:51:27 -0400 Received: from mrout3.yahoo.com ([216.145.54.173]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G6s29-0005dc-Uj for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 12:51:27 -0400 Received: from duringpersonlx (snvvpn2-10-72-76-c68.corp.yahoo.com [10.72.76.68]) by mrout3.yahoo.com (8.13.6/8.13.6/y.out) with ESMTP id k6TGp5xk034051; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:51:07 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:x-mailer:x-mimeole:thread-index:in-reply-to; b=hmS22Qqxyuvbvk21yky26fTqc75iybrKaBmc6uMlKQ7JGUxOOCYJ2cMKlxtxeIDz From: "Addison Phillips" To: "'Peter Constable'" , "'LTRU Working Group'" Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 09:51:03 -0700 Message-ID: <000a01c6b32f$30cdb420$650a0a0a@ds.corp.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 Thread-Index: AcayIaw9ay2jXs1GRiC/WNM37zw11QATzH1QACyavaAAAqlQgA== In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------) X-Scan-Signature: f4c2cf0bccc868e4cc88dace71fb3f44 Cc: X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org I am, of course, using the specific terminology of RFC 3066bis :-). "... language identifiers for identifying languages" strikes me funny. How about: ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, is expected to provide identifiers for about 7000 additional languages. Addison Addison Phillips Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc. Internationalization is an architecture. It is not a feature. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com] > Sent: samedi 29 juillet 2006 09:13 > To: LTRU Working Group > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal > > > From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] > > > > > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, > > > will make available around 6000 (??) more primary language codes > > > and language variant codes. > > > > As noted by others, this sentence should say something > else. However, I'm > > convinced that the comments so far go in the wrong direction. In our > > jargon, > > the term "codes" refers to codes in ISO 639, not to > subtags. I would thus > > propose we say: > > > > -- > > ISO 639-3, scheduled for approval towards the end of 2006, will make > > available around 7000 additional codes for identifying languages. > > If we really wanted to nitpick on terminology... ISO 639-3 > will add *one* language code. That language code will include > language identifiers for around 7000 additional languages. > (That's the correct ISO-speak.) > > > > Peter > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > > _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sat Jul 29 22:37:10 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G71B0-0004ee-3b; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:37:10 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G71Ay-0004eZ-6n for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:37:08 -0400 Received: from mta9.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.199]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G71Aw-0004hb-VW for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:37:08 -0400 Received: from DGBP7M81 ([69.162.95.23]) by mta9.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20060730023701.HDVH16535.mta9.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81> for ; Sat, 29 Jul 2006 22:37:01 -0400 Message-ID: <00bb01c6b381$07e04850$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> From: "Doug Ewell" To: "LTRU Working Group" Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 19:36:57 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="utf-8"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2869 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32 X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org John Cowan wrote: >> If we really wanted to nitpick on terminology... ISO 639-3 will add >> *one* language code. That language code will include language >> identifiers for around 7000 additional languages. (That's the correct >> ISO-speak.) > > But not correct RFC-speak, in which "code" is used to mean the two- > and three-letter items when being treated independently. > > We probably should add to the charter an opportunity to reconcile our > terminology for talking about ISO standards with the terminology used > by the standard itself. Actually, the correct ISO terminology seems to be "code" for the entire system of short identifiers, each of which is a "code element" (corresponding to French "code" and "codet" respectively). We could do a lot worse than to follow that. -- Doug Ewell Fullerton, California, USA http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 30 00:21:38 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G72o4-0005cu-E1; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:21:36 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G72o3-0005cm-9r for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:21:35 -0400 Received: from mercury.ccil.org ([192.190.237.100]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G72o2-0008RV-3N for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:21:35 -0400 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1G72o1-0000i2-LF; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:21:33 -0400 Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 00:21:33 -0400 To: Doug Ewell Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Message-ID: <20060730042133.GD30136@ccil.org> References: <00bb01c6b381$07e04850$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00bb01c6b381$07e04850$040aa8c0@DGBP7M81> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i From: John Cowan X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Doug Ewell scripsit: > Actually, the correct ISO terminology seems to be "code" for the entire > system of short identifiers, each of which is a "code element" > (corresponding to French "code" and "codet" respectively). We could do > a lot worse than to follow that. I'm for that. -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from context. A telegram that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only 190 bits in 5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a legal document as any, even sans digital signature." --me _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Sun Jul 30 13:19:19 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7Ewc-0005Sn-Oi; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:19:14 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7Ewa-0005Sd-Nw for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from mail2.sharplabs.com ([216.65.151.51]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7EwX-0006Lf-DJ for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:19:12 -0400 Received: from admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com (admsrvnt02 [172.29.225.253]) by mail2.sharplabs.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8210E1E149F; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:19:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by admsrvnt02.enet.sharplabs.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:19:06 -0700 Message-ID: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE95@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> From: "McDonald, Ira" To: 'John Cowan' , Doug Ewell Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 10:19:01 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 769a46790fb42fbb0b0cc700c82f7081 Cc: ltru@ietf.org X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org +1 Ira McDonald (Musician / Software Architect) Blue Roof Music / High North Inc PO Box 221 Grand Marais, MI 49839 phone: +1-906-494-2434 email: imcdonald@sharplabs.com > -----Original Message----- > From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan@ccil.org] > Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:22 AM > To: Doug Ewell > Cc: ltru@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal > > > Doug Ewell scripsit: > > > Actually, the correct ISO terminology seems to be "code" > for the entire > > system of short identifiers, each of which is a "code element" > > (corresponding to French "code" and "codet" respectively). > We could do > > a lot worse than to follow that. > > I'm for that. > > -- > John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > "Any legal document draws most of its meaning from > context. A telegram > that says 'SELL HUNDRED THOUSAND SHARES IBM SHORT' (only > 190 bits in > 5-bit Baudot code plus appropriate headers) is as good a > legal document > as any, even sans digital signature." --me > > _______________________________________________ > Ltru mailing list > Ltru@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/403 - Release Date: 7/28/2006 _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 31 02:27:40 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7RFX-0000YE-8J; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:27:35 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7RFV-0000Y9-4Z for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:27:33 -0400 Received: from mailb.microsoft.com ([131.107.1.8] helo=mail3.microsoft.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7RFT-00021y-SD for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 02:27:33 -0400 Received: from mailout5.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.148]) by mail3.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2725); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:27:31 -0700 Received: from RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.61.154]) by mailout5.microsoft.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.2725); Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:27:30 -0700 x-mimeole: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:27:27 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE95@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Charter update proposal Thread-Index: Acaz/FOypHvOPaSmTlC/ghJzfnOz1QAbTvrQ References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D10EE95@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> From: "Peter Constable" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Jul 2006 06:27:30.0911 (UTC) FILETIME=[66B1F6F0:01C6B46A] X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 7aefe408d50e9c7c47615841cb314bed X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org FYI, the ISO Web site indicates that ISO/FDIS 639-3 was registered for the FDIS ballot on July 14. Within ISO, an FDIS ballot is open for two months. Thus, I expect to receive notice of approval of ISO 639-3 about the third week of September. Peter Constable _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru From ltru-bounces@ietf.org Mon Jul 31 19:49:52 2006 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7hWC-0001bV-8o; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:52 -0400 Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7hWA-0001bQ-VS for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:50 -0400 Received: from scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.251.195]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1G7hW7-0002fo-CG for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 31 Jul 2006 19:49:50 -0400 Received: from scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse1 [133.2.253.16]) by scmailgw2.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id k6VNniSi008726 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:49:44 +0900 (JST) Received: from (133.2.210.1) by scmse1.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp via smtp id 5d37_3dc04714_20ef_11db_91a0_0014221fa3c9; Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:49:43 +0900 Received: from Tanzawa.it.aoyama.ac.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.localdomain (8.13.7/8.13.1) with ESMTP id k6VNng8F002547 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:49:43 +0900 Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20060801084838.09d84d80@localhost> X-Sender: duerst@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 08:49:37 +0900 To: LTRU Working Group From: Martin Duerst Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199 Subject: [Ltru] absent, server down X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org Dear WG, I'll be away from email for the next 2.5 days. Also, the server with the Last Call page for the matching draft will be down most of that time. Regards, Martin. #-#-# Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University #-#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru