Re: [Ltru] Applicability Statement for the IANA registry established by 4646

"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Wed, 24 June 2009 05:53 UTC

Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A71693A6F46 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:53:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.042
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.042 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.168, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id e8lpFjX+nHjf for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:53:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.251.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D0463A6F34 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:53:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp (scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.253.159]) by scmailgw01.scop.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id n5O5rOCD021119 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:53:24 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by scmse02.scbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 7342_54c2fd18_6083_11de_9cd5_001d096c5782; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:53:24 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.1]:35051) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S115F395> for <ltru@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:51:25 +0900
Message-ID: <4A41BF49.6070906@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 14:53:13 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1b3pre) Gecko/20090108 Eudora/3.0b1pre
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AA8D686C@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AA8D686C@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Applicability Statement for the IANA registry established by 4646
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:53:21 -0000

Hello Alex,

[shepherd hat on]
I have looked at this mail thread. First, I want to appologise for any 
comments that you got based on text that was originally from me.

Second, I think Addison did a very good job below in getting the wording 
smoothed and integrating the various comments from the WG. Of course, 
it's ultimately your call what you want, but I suggets taking the text 
below as your base. Possible changes might be to remove [CLDR] (as 
suggested by Randy; personally, I feel that this as well can stay in) or 
to simplify one sentence as suggested by Mark:

 >>>>
I suggest a simplification of the middle sentence:

Language tags are designed for indicating linguistic attributes of 
various content, including not only text but also most media formats 
such as video or audio.
<<<<

The last question then is where to put this section. Given it's focus on 
applicability for one particular purpose (creating user interfaces), I 
definitely think that having it as a major section would be wrong.

As Section 3 is about the registry, I think making this section 3.9 
could be just about right.

Regards,    Martin.

On 2009/06/24 10:31, Phillips, Addison wrote:
> (as a contributor)
>
> Okay, we've had some edit proposals and comments. I have incorporated them into the text below, editing as appropriate for style, grammar, and flow. Generally I took Mark's comments on Randy's comments. I adapted Peter's suggested (positive) text as an introduction, although it is substantially modified to make it "naïve-user" friendly (per Randy) :-).
>
> So... how about:
>
> --
> Section x.x.x Applicability of the Subtag Registry
>
> The Language Subtag Registry is the source of data elements used to construct language tags, following rules described in this document. Language tags are intended for use as metadata that describes the linguistic attributes of "information objects" (content, which, in addition to text, can include most media formats such as video or audio). They also form the basis for language and locale negotiation in various protocols and APIs.
>
> The registry is therefore applicable to many applications that need some form of language identification, with these limitations:
>
>    - It is not designed to be the sole data source in the creation of a language selection user interface. For example, the registry does not contain translations for subtag descriptions or for tags composed from the subtags. Sources for localized data based on the registry are generally available, notably [CLDR]. Nor does the registry indicate which subtag combinations are particularly useful or relevant.
>
>     - It does not provide information indicating relationships between different languages, such as might be used in a user interface to select language tags hierarchically, regionally, or on some other organizational model.
>
>      - It does not supply information about potential overlap between different language tags, as the notion of what constitutes a language is not precise: several different language tags might be reasonable choices for the same given piece of content.
>
>      - It does not contain information about appropriate fallback choices when performing language negotiation. A good fallback language might be linguistically unrelated to the specified language. The fact that one language is often used as a backup language for another is usually a result of outside factors, such as geography, history, or culture--factors which might not apply in all cases. For example, most people who use Breton (a Celtic language used in the Northwest of France) would probably prefer to be served French (a Romance language) if Breton isn't available.
> --
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

-- 
#-# Martin J. Dürst, Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-# http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp   mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp