Re: [Ltru] Extensions in general (was: Re: Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext)

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Mon, 11 July 2011 12:09 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
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 1368221F8B56 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.359
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.359 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.620, BAYES_20=-0.74, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.001]
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 8x9BFx73wWV7 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpauth17.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpauth17.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [64.202.165.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 30B7121F8B53 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 11 Jul 2011 05:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 1849 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2011 12:09:34 -0000
Received: from unknown (24.8.55.39) by smtpauth17.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.29) with ESMTP; 11 Jul 2011 12:09:34 -0000
Message-ID: <782AEE0A3C67452F90997E84CB3A3CB9@DougEwell>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.3034.1310322633.3031.ltru@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3034.1310322633.3031.ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 06:09:34 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3508.1109
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3508.1109
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Extensions in general (was: Re: 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: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:09:37 -0000

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

>> for example, should ietf-languages deprecate existing variants like
>> 'pinyin' if they become available via -t-? Users are supposed to be
>> able to ignore extensions if they don't understand them or choose not
>> to, but they are not supposed to ignore variants.
>
> This could be an issue -- I can see having a period where
> zh-pinyin-t-zh-hans would be valid and zh-pinyin would also be and
> both would be essentially equivalent, but I am not sure that everyone
> will be happy with this solution.  And I can understand that. Oh well.

That's not the scenario I had in mind, though mixing existing variants 
with -t- subtags would be another interesting complication.  I was 
thinking of "zh-pinyin" versus "zh-Latn-t-zh-Hans-m0-pinyin", which I 
guess would be the new way.

> A few more comments:  I wish that following -t somewhere there could
> be a choice of options, tscrip (transcription), trlit
> (transliteration), or trlat (translation) but I know this is getting
> cumbersome.

Even people on this list can't agree on what is a transcription and what 
is a transliteration.  I strongly doubt requiring users to make this 
distinction would add any value to the tags.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­