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

"Broome, Karen" <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com> Mon, 20 July 2009 18:18 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 86CA03A6B94 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:18:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.698
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.698 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 ZolpXkSHyqKC for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from IE1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (outbound-dub.frontbridge.com [213.199.154.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551343A6359 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:18:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail11-dub-R.bigfish.com (10.5.252.3) by IE1EHSOBE001.bigfish.com (10.5.252.21) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.340.0; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:08 +0000
Received: from mail11-dub (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail11-dub-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDC9DDE0120; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-SpamScore: -40
X-BigFish: VPS-40(zz98dN179dN9371Pzz1202hzz1033ILz2fh6bh61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
Received: by mail11-dub (MessageSwitch) id 1248113765316167_21697; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:05 +0000 (UCT)
Received: from mail8.fw-sd.sony.com (mail8.fw-sd.sony.com [160.33.66.75]) by mail11-dub.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7DEBE48062; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:04 +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 n6KIG2In020962; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:03 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 n6KIG2iu008366; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:16:02 GMT
Received: from USBMAXRG02.am.sony.com ([43.145.108.24]) by USBMAXIM02.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:16:02 -0400
Received: from USSDIXRG02.am.sony.com ([43.130.140.32]) by USBMAXRG02.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 14:16:02 -0400
Received: from USSDIXRG01.am.sony.com ([43.130.140.31]) by USSDIXRG02.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:15:59 -0700
Received: from USSDIXMS01.am.sony.com ([43.130.140.21]) by USSDIXRG01.am.sony.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:15:58 -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_01CA0966.214E7A18"
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:15:57 -0700
Message-ID: <8D97027965E89F488BC87B919382D9FD053DF0F2@ussdixms01.am.sony.com>
In-Reply-To: <30b660a20907191229h282c0673yae2a710c7a7a1248@mail.gmail.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
Thread-Index: AcoIpzX4EUR6/qXlRfKfUqUFP41edwAvkk7Q
References: <mailman.110.1248029268.4909.ltru@ietf.org><8BA7C9A96AE849AE97FA9E1779A81D20@DGBP7M81> <30b660a20907191229h282c0673yae2a710c7a7a1248@mail.gmail.com>
From: "Broome, Karen" <Karen.Broome@am.sony.com>
To: =?utf-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDijJs=?= <mark@macchiato.com>, "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jul 2009 18:15:58.0870 (UTC) FILETIME=[219C8360:01CA0966]
X-SEL-encryption-scan: scanned
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
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: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:18:28 -0000

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