Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)

Hmm. It appears that informative text that I requested previously to indicate that script tags should not be used with spoken content was removed? This is disappointing as this is an area where there is great confusion in tagging audio language. 

I would never recommend the use of Zxxx to indicate a spoken language. It’s a contradiction in terms and doesn’t provide any useful information. That said, I have no current request for “spoken” or “written” tags from IANA. I think there are other ways my industry will likely handle this, but I’m a bit upset that I seem to have missed the point when the text important to me was removed or rewritten.

I think we previously agreed that Zxxx is a tag of last resort. Legal, but not particularly elegant.

Regards,

Karen Broome

From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
Sent: Sunday, July 19, 2009 12:29 PM
To: Doug Ewell
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)

We had a long discussion on this very topic. We don't need a separate code -- we already have Zxxx for unwritten content.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis

          (The tag "uz-Zxxx"

          could also be used where content is not written, as the subtag

          'Zxxx' represents the "Code for unwritten documents".)

The only thing we might conceivably need is "this is written, but I don't know which script it is", and Zyyy fits the bill well for that.

Mark

On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 12:07, Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org> wrote:

CE Whitehead <cewcathar at hotmail dot com> wrote:

I am rethinking the idea of having distinctions for oral and written--these would not be used often I don't think.

"Often" isn't a prerequisite to registering a variant.  I don't think we really know how often '1606nict' and '1694acad' will be used, either.

Karen Broome did state an industry need to distinguish spoken and written variants.  When we have one person saying there is sometimes a need, another person saying there probably isn't a need, and proponents of ISO 639-6 saying that there may be a need to distinguish much, much finer variations, that tells me we probably have the right balance :-). It also tells me that proposals on ietf-languages to add variants 'spoken' and 'written', while they might not be accepted, would certainly not be out of order.

	Likewise in English, the written form is more or less like the spoken 'standard;'

Um, I don't really, like, agree with that, y'know?

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

_______________________________________________

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