Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Mon, 25 July 2011 17:42 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 5CF9B21F8BDC for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.506
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 Kj17Tc027hqc for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpoutwbe07.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe07.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.209]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id A84EE21F8BCE for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 4497 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2011 17:42:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (72.167.218.130) by smtpoutwbe07.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 25 Jul 2011 17:42:46 -0000
Received: (qmail 21118 invoked by uid 99); 25 Jul 2011 17:42:46 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 208.51.143.190
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.13
Message-Id: <20110725104245.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.ee2bf8cf5c.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ltru@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 10:42:45 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Proposed -t0- subtag
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, 25 Jul 2011 17:42:48 -0000

"Broome, Karen" <Karen dot Broome at am dot sony dot com> wrote:

> Sorry, I was thinking the original ISO registration had gone through
> as 'No Linguistic content' but now I'm remembering that this was
> somewhat of a partner tag for 'zxx' which does mean that. I wasn't
> referencing the RFC text per se, which gives the user an option — and
> I'm OK with the option. Still, I generally find this muddy. I don't
> want to look to a script tag to define the language mode because there
> are commonly used language modes that are not written forms. The
> disconnect with the 'zxx' tag this tags mirrors may be another reason
> to avoid use to indicate the language mode.

I think what you are finding "muddy" is not the subtag 'Zxxx', which
does have a fairly clear meaning in BCP 47, but rather the use of a
script (writing system) subtag to tag content that isn't written.  I can
see how this is unintuitive.  I think the answer is that BCP 47 tags
aren't really designed to tag modes out of the box, and that, in turn,
is exactly what extensions are for.

If you or anyone else did want to create an extension RFC for modes
('m', perhaps), you'd probably want to start the discussion by
identifying the initial values (spoken, written, signed, anything else?)
and setting constraints.  As examples of the latter, you'd want to
establish whether male vs. female, shouting vs. whispering, friendly vs.
angry, handwritten vs. printed, etc. are in scope.

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