Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)

"Broome, Karen" <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com> Wed, 15 July 2009 15:37 UTC

Return-Path: <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>
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 B7AEB28C123 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:37:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.799
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.799 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.200, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_34=0.6]
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 h2hf5gQiMMGh for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from SG2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (sg2ehsobe005.messaging.microsoft.com [207.46.51.79]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E80F28C11E for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:37:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail225-sin-R.bigfish.com (10.210.100.243) by SG2EHSOBE005.bigfish.com (10.210.112.25) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:33 +0000
Received: from mail225-sin (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail225-sin-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BEA218D80A4; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:21 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -48
X-BigFish: VPS-48(z518kz542N1432R936eM1442J9371Pzz1202hzz1033ILz2fh6bh61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
Received: by mail225-sin (MessageSwitch) id 1247672238953396_25965; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:18 +0000 (UCT)
Received: from mail8.fw-sd.sony.com (mail8.fw-sd.sony.com [160.33.66.75]) by mail225-sin.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FB6D13A8059; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail1.bc.in.sel.sony.com (mail1.bc.in.sel.sony.com [43.144.65.111]) by mail8.fw-sd.sony.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n6FFbSmw027916; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:28 GMT
Received: from USBMAXIM02.am.sony.com ([43.145.108.26]) by mail1.bc.in.sel.sony.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n6FFbSPu021453; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:28 GMT
Received: from USBMAXRG01.am.sony.com ([43.145.108.23]) by USBMAXIM02.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:37:27 -0400
Received: from USSDIXRG02.am.sony.com ([43.130.140.32]) by USBMAXRG01.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:37:27 -0400
Received: from USSDIXRG01.am.sony.com ([43.130.140.31]) by USSDIXRG02.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:37:07 -0700
Received: from USSDIXMS01.am.sony.com ([43.130.140.21]) by USSDIXRG01.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:37:07 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01CA0562.1BFEBDFF"
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 08:37:06 -0700
Message-ID: <8D97027965E89F488BC87B919382D9FD0510BEC2@ussdixms01.am.sony.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
Thread-Index: AcoExZndZwd0A4NlQZKsK0un4iE/ggAUx4RwAA3VKU4ABDzJYw==
References: <C683A5F6.F25A%kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>
From: "Broome, Karen" <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>
To: Kent Karlsson <kent.karlsson14@comhem.se>, debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 15 Jul 2009 15:37:07.0584 (UTC) FILETIME=[1C74F000:01CA0562]
X-SEL-encryption-scan: scanned
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
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, 15 Jul 2009 15:37:50 -0000

For what it's worth, the film and television world does have a pretty heavy requirement for dialect distinctions. We also have a need to identify spoken and written variants. ISO 639-6 also provides a fixed-length tag, which can be advantageous in some situations. While I tend to see ISO 639-6 as an interesting alternative to xml:lang and not necessarily something I'd use within xml:lang, I wanted to correct the assumption that dialect tagging is obscure and the distinction between spoken and written variants is not useful.

Regards,

Karen Broome


-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org on behalf of Kent Karlsson
Sent: Wed 7/15/2009 6:27 AM
To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomalyinupcomingregistry)
 

Den 2009-07-15 09.00, skrev "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>:

> Well for starters, there are separate codes for Catalan and Valencian :-)

So does BCP 47 (well, nearly):
    ca
    ca-valencia

There is nothing in principle hindering a registration of a variant subtag
specifically for "true" Catalan (no value judgement implied).

> And, I rather like the way ISO 639-6 deals with variants of Chinese.

639-3 also deals with "variants" of Chinese (separate languages, really).
How does 639-6 do it differently (apart from using 4-letter codes instead of
3-letter codes)?

> Perhaps you would like to tell me how many of the 7000+ codes of ISO 639-3
> will be used.  My guess is approximately 2-300 at present but over time more
> and more.  The answer is the same for ISO 639-6.
> 
> Essentially, all the reasons for including ISO 639-6 are the same as for
> including ISO 639-3.  Unless of course, you think that ISO 639-3 is perfect
> and defines all languages distinctly and that anything else cannot, is not,
> and definitely is not a language.  Then of course you have to decide that
> BCP 47 will only deal with languages and not dialects.

BCP 47 does deal with dialects, using variant subtags. However, it is very
very far from systematic or comprehensive. It requires individual
registration of each variant. I would venture to guess that that process
will never result in a systematic or (in some sense) comprehensive set
of variant subtags for dialects. On the other hand, the call for tagging
dialects separately, currently seems fairly small amongst the consumers of
BCP 47, IMHO.

    /kent k

> Then, and only then,
> may you exclude ISO 639-6.
> 
> 
> Debbie


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