Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com> Thu, 07 July 2011 20:07 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.com>
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 8089611E80B8 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:07:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_FONT_FACE_BAD=0.884, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MANGLED_TEXT=2.3, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 MXIUAz5mMayV for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gy0-f172.google.com (mail-gy0-f172.google.com [209.85.160.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2622811E80AB for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:06:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gyd5 with SMTP id 5so630733gyd.31 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=QvYpeHeaeecG+XM/cRDCmVymdZlBEPjATgUvQ+qfT/w=; b=VcFIoZRXMdKt6kGmoT4wB7nwcaMiJE8NM6qMuz7dXLnMKJ+4eZ5zWTBM3ZkToSU03E L4kEKpnEmKDSSRGC9D7mOLCxVkHi5fR7WOyqkV6/KRN7fAFF3AZPkSZZVOcbKEUdB1VO IgFNeY7jfK/MMpRKCQi12A7EnnICptwNxfVZY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.150.94.6 with SMTP id r6mr1242841ybb.387.1310069218421; Thu, 07 Jul 2011 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.151.48.19 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:06:58 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <075f01cc3cbf$0f04ba90$2d0e2fb0$@co.uk>
References: <4E14F473.6030101@qualcomm.com> <4E152E4F.9070203@gmail.com> <CAJ2xs_Fm0NLOyL6PLps=77mb=o-gU2cCvi0=i0nj6NQJ01qnVw@mail.gmail.com> <075f01cc3cbf$0f04ba90$2d0e2fb0$@co.uk>
Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2011 13:06:58 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 3iKq0-CamMwM25tW99kvvEUjnRs
Message-ID: <CAJ2xs_ED6pmF=t=0g9G5fUJH8GyM8X+G=_juC93uuw0JHtcsJQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDimJU=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
To: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd6e7e6652ada04a7804211
Cc: Pete Resnick <presnick@qualcomm.com>, CLDR list <cldr@unicode.org>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
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: Thu, 07 Jul 2011 20:07:00 -0000

These are not primary language subtags or variants, as covered by BCP47.
That still remains as it has been.

This is a different area, part of an extension that is to provide a
structured approach to the specification of transliteration. The development
of extensions and their scope is covered by BCP47, and you can find the
details there.

The Unicode CLDR committee is already serves as the registrar for the -u-
extension. The committee operates under the procedures in
http://unicode.org/consortium/tc-procedures.html, but the vast majority of
decisions are taken by consensus. The consortium is already the Registration
Authority for ISO 15924 (Scripts).

Mark
*— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*


On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 09:00, Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>wrote;wrote:

> I am also concerned about the structure of the Unicode Committee and voting
> rights. Perhaps someone can explain how this will work and why it is
> required in addition to the current structure for the registration of
> language tags.****
>
> ** **
>
> Have I missed something here? (I probably have as I have been away from the
> list for some time)  Have Unicode already taken over some of the duties of
> the BCP47 registrar?****
>
> ** **
>
> Best wishes****
>
> ** **
>
> Debbie****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of
> *Mark Davis ?
>
> *Sent:* 07 July 2011 15:43
> *To:* Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> *Cc:* Pete Resnick; ltru@ietf.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext****
>
> ** **
>
> Thanks for the feedback. We can make those corrections.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> One question. The primary reason that we chose to use a BCP was primarily
> because it provided a stable reference; the underlying RFCs can (and have)
> changed while "BCP47" has remained the same. Listing the current RFCs
> somewhat undercuts that. Note: if that is the practice we should do it, but
> it seems odd.****
>
> ** **
>
> Mark****
>
> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —*
>
> ****
>
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 20:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <evnikita2@gmail.com>
> wrote:****
>
> Hello,
>
> I've identified the following issue in the draft.
>
> Section 2.2 says:
>
>
> ****
>
>    The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form:****
>
> ** **
>
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+****
>
>      | Label  | ABNF                    | Comment                    |****
>
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+****
>
>      | t_ext= | "t"                     | Extension                  |****
>
>      |        | ("-" lang *("-" field)  | Source + optional field(s) |****
>
>      |        | / 1*("-" field))        | Field(s) only (no source)  |****
>
>      | lang=  | language                | [BCP47 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01#ref-BCP47>], with restrictions |****
>
>      |        | ["-" script]            |                            |****
>
>      |        | ["-" region]            |                            |****
>
>      |        | *("-" variant)          |                            |****
>
>      | field= | sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum) | With restrictions          |****
>
>      | sep=   | 1ALPHA 1DIGIT           | Subtag separators          |****
>
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+****
>
>
> I should note that, first of all, reference to RFC 5234 is missing;
> moreover, and this is more important, making the ABNF definition in the form
> of table makes such definition an invalid one, in terms of RFC 5234.  Also,
> there are a number of ABNF nits here.  So, please consider changing this to:
>
>
> ****
>
>    The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form, defined****
>
>    using ABNF [RFC5234] in <t-ext> rule:****
>
> ** **
>
>      t-ext    = "t" ("-" lang *("-" field) / 1*("-" field))****
>
>      lang     = langtag****
>
>      field    = sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum)****
>
>      sep      = ALPHA DIGIT****
>
>      alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT****
>
> ** **
>
>    where <langta> rule is specified in BCP 47 [BCP47], <ALPHA> and <DIGIT>****
>
>    rules - in RFC 5234 [RFC5234].****
>
> Also, the minors comments on references.  Reference to BCP 47 should
> include both references to RFC 5646 and RFC 4647, like:
>
> ****
>
>    [BCP47]    Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of Language Tags", ****
>
>               BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.****
>
> ** **
>
>               Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying****
>
>               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.****
>
> ...and, referencing UTS 35 you shouldn't reference specific parts of the
> document; this should be done in the text.  Finally, I don't see where
> [US-ASCII] is used in the text.
>
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev****
>
>
>
> 07.07.2011 2:49, Pete Resnick wrote: ****
>
> Most of the people on the ietf-languages list are probably on the
> ltru@ietf.org list as well, but I wanted to confirm that everyone got a
> chance to review this before it proceeded to the IESG. Please have a look at
> the ltru archive
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html><http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html>and send any comments to the
> ltru@ietf.org list since that's where discussion seems to be taking place.
>
> Thanks.
>
> pr****
>
> ** **
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru****
>
> ** **
>