Re: [Ltru] clear guidance on tagging in cases involving a related macrolanguage

"Broome, Karen" <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com> Fri, 23 May 2008 01:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 625F03A6B7A; Thu, 22 May 2008 18:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
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 7FEAF3A6B66 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2008 18:51:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 9r5KfkDGys6T for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 May 2008 18:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound2-dub-R.bigfish.com (outbound-dub.frontbridge.com [213.199.154.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 565933A6968 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 May 2008 18:51:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound2-dub.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound2-dub-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9104C8B0E; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail52-dub-R.bigfish.com (unknown [10.5.252.3]) by outbound2-dub.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 340BB17D0051; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail52-dub (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail52-dub-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E70BD174037F; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:09 +0000 (UTC)
X-BigFish: V
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 160.33.98.75;Service: EHS
Received: by mail52-dub (MessageSwitch) id 1211507409890066_8220; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:09 +0000 (UCT)
Received: from mail8.fw-bc.sony.com (mail8.fw-bc.sony.com [160.33.98.75]) by mail52-dub.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 848CD1A48054; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail1.sgo.in.sel.sony.com (mail1.sgo.in.sel.sony.com [43.130.1.111]) by mail8.fw-bc.sony.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4N1o8hI006164; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:08 GMT
Received: from ussdixtran21.spe.sony.com ([43.130.141.78]) by mail1.sgo.in.sel.sony.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4N1o8c8010028; Fri, 23 May 2008 01:50:08 GMT
Received: from USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com ([43.130.141.74]) by ussdixtran21.spe.sony.com ([43.130.141.78]) with mapi; Thu, 22 May 2008 18:50:08 -0700
From: "Broome, Karen" <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
To: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 18:50:07 -0700
Thread-Topic: clear guidance on tagging in cases involving a related macrolanguage
Thread-Index: Aci8MXRDuQ9FXuo9Qx2T9oUICs3B/AAJXxqwAAAxxWAAAMcUYAAAiaBwAACUx7AAAeoo4AAARAtwAANxNMAAAA8jjw==
Message-ID: <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C2528A9E@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <30b660a20805221029k13cdb18asf31bcb6f9fc491a1@mail.gmail.com> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2683F73@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E56157008C2B@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2683FA7@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E56157008C4B@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251B147@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E268407E@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251B160@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>, <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E268410A@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E268410A@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] clear guidance on tagging in cases involving a related macrolanguage
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

I think extlang will likely be a cleaner solution to me than what you might offer, but I'm open to that as long as the preferred tagging and associated semantics are clear.

I think de-CH is a problem. I see more problems like this if we move forward extlangless with multiple "preferred" tag choices for the same thing and subjective distinctions. In the face of that, I start to like ISO 639-6.

I *like* hierarchies.

Karen

________________________________________
From: Peter Constable [petercon@microsoft.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:40 PM
To: Broome, Karen
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: RE: clear guidance on tagging in cases involving a related     macrolanguage

Could you live without extlang provided those conditions were met, or do you think those conditions can't be met without extlang?


Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Broome, Karen [mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:01 PM
> To: Peter Constable
> Cc: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: RE: clear guidance on tagging in cases involving a related
> macrolanguage
>
> Yes, Peter.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
> >Of Peter Constable
> >Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:58 PM
> >To: LTRU Working Group
> >Subject: [Ltru] clear guidance on tagging in cases involving a
> >related macrolanguage
> >
> >[changing the subject per Randy's request]
> >
> >> From: Broome, Karen [mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com]
> >
> >> Either way, zh-yue will remain valid, but not necessarily
> >preferred.
> >> Having clear preferences is very important to me. I really don't
> >want
> >> to recommend that people use "zh" for Mandarin or have to explain
> >to
> >> someone why I think a deprecated tag is preferred in this industry
> >but
> >> not others.
> >
> >And in another msg,
> >
> >> I care more about identification than applications.
> >
> >
> >So, it sounds to me like what you really care about are the
> >following:
> >
> >- Don't have a recommendation "tag Madarin content as zh"
> >
> >- Have a single clear recommendation for how to tag each language
> >(one or the other of "cmn" or "zh-cmn" for Mandarin would do).
> >
> >
> >Is that right?
> >
> >
> >Peter
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ltru mailing list
> >Ltru@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>



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