RE: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field

+1.

In addition I would prefer to have "Deprecated: ..." for those of type "Collection",
on the grounds that they are "Collection"s, and indeed the "(Other)" portion in
many (most) of them does not make sense in relation to 639-3.

	/kent k

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell@adelphia.net] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 05, 2006 8:31 AM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Proposal: include new "Language-Type:" field
> 
> 
> John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:
> 
> > The 4646bis registry should capture the language type 
> information from 
> > ISO 639-3.  Each language, including macrolanguages, is 
> labeled in -3 
> > as either living, extinct, ancient, historic, or 
> constructed.  These 
> > terms are defined precisely at 
> http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/types.asp . 
> > Though informative rather than normative, this is very 
> useful to help 
> > shrink the large number of languages to a more manageable size.
> 
> I support this proposal of John's.  I don't agree that it makes the 
> Registry into a "kitchen sink" compendium of irrelevant 
> information --  
> it is directly related to tagging.
> 
> We have text in Section 4.1 of 4646bis that tells users not to use 
> "subtags for language collections," but those are not clearly defined 
> anywhere except by reference to ISO 639 (and by a rather puzzling 
> passage involving "xxx" and "yyy", which I guess are space-fillers). 
> One of the major reasons for having a Registry was so users would not 
> have to go back to the ISO standards to find out what to use and what 
> not to use.
> 
> Likewise, instead of having separate notes about (not) using 
> "und" and 
> "mul", it might make sense to include a broad usage note about type 
> "special" and then list the specific cases.  Note that by hard-coding 
> "und" and "mul" into 4646 and 4646bis, we have missed talking about 
> "zxx", which should have similar usage constraints.
> 
> Trying to correlate languages to countries or group them into 
> families 
> (beyond what the core standard provides) would be examples of adding 
> information that isn't needed for tagging.
> 
> It would be easy to add these Language-Type fields to the 4645bis 
> Registry based on the 639-3 data -- not to say that should be a 
> determining factor in whether we do it.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
> http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru