Re: [Ietf-languages] Khmer orthographic reform

Élie Roux <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu> Fri, 01 November 2019 09:01 UTC

Return-Path: <roux.elie@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CBD912012E for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 02:01:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.034
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.034 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KzYpXX6UE5_B for <ietf-languages@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 02:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no (mork.alvestrand.no [158.38.152.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 17B961200F5 for <ietf-languages@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 02:01:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) id 91AF67C3A2E; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:01:04 +0100 (CET)
Delivered-To: ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AF907C3A19 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:01:04 +0100 (CET)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at alvestrand.no
Received: from mork.alvestrand.no ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mork.alvestrand.no [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tv6zWSn5sWzR for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:01:02 +0100 (CET)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0
X-Comment: SPF skipped for whitelisted relay - client-ip=192.0.33.71; helo=pechora1.lax.icann.org; envelope-from=roux.elie@gmail.com; receiver=ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
Received: from pechora1.lax.icann.org (pechora1.icann.org [192.0.33.71]) by mork.alvestrand.no (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 298677C39D5 for <ietf-languages@alvestrand.no>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:01:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail-il1-f169.google.com (mail-il1-f169.google.com [209.85.166.169]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pechora1.lax.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6FF5C1E0485 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:00:57 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-il1-f169.google.com with SMTP id a13so8139076ilp.1 for <ietf-languages@iana.org>; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 02:00:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZjjuZEnJOF1qLPOpPMroMrQu0GjfysZzSs8yLkss9vc=; b=iNtLf4ZVxmo1CTdBs75ELchmTkbOuCAKN6xw9mnSi/7W/m69bpFSLsnOxuwr2k3Sej MJM3Ma8/XDTrDHBzw+jzgT3TAI90VpdGhwNSuX1l8CvQ2mzYCvPmso0Vvfq9I/qhAac8 yN1D51300Xgjf2boZZm6QmtPwTEUyir8PCbsScUq/Ow6OLYVCxclBAdCMiasyBBgElEy tmgPZbL38YEoA6fPV72Ou3fSFMw8r/sr7UVqE7bfnzMCRwPQnPekmu7ly3vSpYVIEPnL BAMwTKE3+H/as6RaoWCUlZhbVbNqrIbId2iK/U2KIm7M37oXZPJY/0HU6c0kS863wnLU tugQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAXSeqbZy/vJwv/BNyswCRf/FCio7OSC41Nwrk2918gN55TWWaUB YbqfvM8gS3r0Y/qM2kCjOzdrED2yE1Tr352zYr0=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqyyzB67RzEnoig0p/Zx+pyxSxX6CQZOSPGkMtH7tkpP1R8n0g6ROO+XhCX+jS2V8+3ofq3kTNwEkIBOvhsWjvA=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:546:: with SMTP id i6mr10808817ils.54.1572598836088; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 02:00:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20191031151719.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.38c22bee93.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
In-Reply-To: <20191031151719.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.38c22bee93.wbe@email03.godaddy.com>
From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=89lie_Roux?= <elie.roux@telecom-bretagne.eu>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2019 10:00:25 +0100
Message-ID: <CANfi1JhMoxP3JyUS76GzNA-p7Atg92mGysp-_2SU2AZXomsioQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Cc: IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages@iana.org>, Chris Tomlinson <chris.j.tomlinson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf-languages/LKvq_3ervXPVYaVAog0D7h3V3hg>
Subject: Re: [Ietf-languages] Khmer orthographic reform
X-BeenThere: ietf-languages@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-languages.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf-languages/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-languages@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages>, <mailto:ietf-languages-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:01:08 -0000

Thanks for the answers!

> It may not be clear that two subtags are needed, if the current
> orthography is overwhelmingly dominant and can be assumed, but that
> discussion can come later.

Sure, I thought about just one tag for pre-reform orthography yes,
it's reasonable to assume that the default would be the modern one

> You'll certainly want to find a reference that explains and describes
> the reform. The ones Richard supplied may help. It's not mandatory that
> all contemporary writers switched to the new orthography simultaneously
> or uniformly; that certainly wasn't the case for, say, '1606nict'.

Ok yes, makes sense. I'll try to find a reference point; my
understanding is that it will be quite arbitrary as there seems to be
a continuum of reforms; and it seems not very productive to identify
each one with a different tag.

> The subtag values themselves probably won't be any sort of abbreviation
> for "pre-20th century" or the like. Such a subtag could theoretically
> apply to dozens or hundreds of languages, with a different meaning for
> each; and although the Prefix field is supposed to suggest the languages
> for which the subtag is considered suitable, concerns are usually voiced
> that this is not sufficient to discourage inappropriate use.

Oh, so it's better if it contain the name of the language? something
like -kmpre20c ?

Best,
-- 
Elie