Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Mon, 18 July 2011 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3169E21F8B66 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -99.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-99.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.174, BAYES_40=-0.185, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4tuuDLV8RKlG for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.20.34]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6A621F8B64 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 01:58:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.20.226]) by acintmta02.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6I8vtx5001898 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:57:55 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 566a_349f_0715bd26_b11c_11e0_8ff1_001d096c5b62; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:57:55 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:33949) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S152FE6D> for <ltru@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:57:56 +0900
Message-ID: <4E23F565.2040606@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:57:09 +0900
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22Martin_J=2E_D=FCrst=22?= <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
References: <SNT142-w47E796198D72F223478656B3470@phx.gbl> <4E1E9857.1090209@cs.tut.fi>
In-Reply-To: <4E1E9857.1090209@cs.tut.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Minor proofreading nits again
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 08:58:05 -0000

On 2011/07/14 16:18, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> Moreover, "on language" is somewhat mild, as transliteration may depend
> both on the original language of a name (or other text) and on the
> language environment where the transliteration is used - and only the
> latter is discussed in the example. For example, Cyrillic letters can be
> transliterated according to different principles depending on whether
> they are Russian, Ukrainian, Khantuan, or something else.
>
> I would say "but also on source language and in the language context
> where the transliteration is used". And maybe the example could be
> replaced by a more difficult one - like a Greek name that has multiple
> translations, depending on whether it is treated as a classical name or
> a modern name, on the language of the context, and on the specific
> transliteration scheme used.

There are certainly cases where there's more than the source and target 
language and script involved. But on the other hand, there are also 
cases where there's not really a target language.

An example would be what can currently be denoted by ja-Latn-hepburn. My 
understanding is that such cases are also supposed to be covered by -t. 
How would such cases look? How much more time and effort (than for a 
variant subtag) would be required for registration.

Regards,   Martin.