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

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:

> 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****
>
> ** **
>