IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] extlang for users

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Mon, 26 May 2008 20:03 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2FBD628C1D9; Mon, 26 May 2008 13:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D48673A6BF5 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2008 13:03:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.407
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.407 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.192, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hBqU4-GNLaWQ for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2008 13:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.bortzmeyer.org (aetius.bortzmeyer.org [217.70.190.232]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065823A6BED for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2008 13:03:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail.bortzmeyer.org (Postfix, from userid 10) id 964FC323DB; Mon, 26 May 2008 22:03:05 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by mail.sources.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id A0B2AC9366; Mon, 26 May 2008 22:02:37 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 22:02:37 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Martin Hosken <martin_hosken@sil.org>
Message-ID: <20080526200237.GA19588@sources.org>
References: <20080527000859.7a70d079@sil-mh4>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20080527000859.7a70d079@sil-mh4>
X-Transport: UUCP rules
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux 4.0
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang for users
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 12:08:59AM +0700,
 Martin Hosken <martin_hosken@sil.org> wrote 
 a message of 14 lines which said:

> So, if we go with extlang, how should I tag some Mandarin text?

I assume that the current plan is to go back to
draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-09, the last one with extlangs.

> zh-cmn or cmn?

Section 2.2.2 of draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-09 says "zh-cmn" (the
canonical tag for mandarin) and just adds:

   The
   language subtag 'zh' can still be used without an extended language
   subtag to label a resource as some unspecified variety of Chinese
   (which in practice will usually be Mandarin, the dominant variety of
   Chinese, but might also be some other variety).
 
> And also please can someone explain why, because I'm going to have
> to teach this to a very confused set of users (not least of which is
> me).

If someone understands the recent tide that switched the previous
consensus, please reply here :-)

PS: people who understand "fr" are welcome to read
<http://www.bortzmeyer.org/extlang-or-not-extlang.html>
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email