Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

doug@ewellic.org Sat, 09 July 2011 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=g4oZEm=Z4=ewellic.org=doug@srs.bis6.us.blackberry.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF9C21F8B42 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:59:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.846
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.846 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_BASE64_TEXT=1.753, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vEEsSrOcnopW for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:59:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp07.bis6.us.blackberry.com (smtp07.bis6.us.blackberry.com [74.82.85.7]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92C7A21F8B40 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Jul 2011 17:59:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from b15.c19.bise6.blackberry ([192.168.0.115]) by srs.bis6.us.blackberry.com (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p690wvWF009011; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 00:58:57 GMT
Received: from 172.29.212.206 (cmp36.c19.bise6.blackberry [172.29.212.206]) by b15.c19.bise6.blackberry (8.13.7 TEAMON/8.13.7) with ESMTP id p690wvQa031222; Sat, 9 Jul 2011 00:58:57 GMT
X-rim-org-msg-ref-id: 267398641
Message-ID: <267398641-1310173137-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-1242757085-@b17.c19.bise6.blackberry>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
X-Priority: Normal
Sensitivity: Normal
Importance: Normal
To: "Kent Karlsson" <kent.karlsson14@telia.com>, "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
From: doug@ewellic.org
Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 00:58:54 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: doug@ewellic.org
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 01:00:25 -0000

The current draft refers partly to the LSR (for "from" tags, which I understand), partly to data located somewhere within CLDR, and partly to a set of numeric patterns and an interpretation rule. That's not "a registry" in any sense, so I guess it's a good thing that BCP 47 doesn't seem to require one.

During the review period for the draft that became 6067, I argued hard for putting all the relevant data in one easy-to-find place, not zipped together with a lot of unrelated data. That argument was not successful, and you can see now that much of the current draft is being defended as "this is the same thing we did in 6067, which was approved." So the argument is even less likely to be accepted than it was before.

--Doug  
------Original Message------
From: Kent Karlsson
To: Doug Ewell
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
Sent: Jul 8, 2011 15:32


Den 2011-07-08 18:38, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>rg>:

> I just noticed that RFC 5646, Section 2.2.6 ("Extension Subtags"), item
3
> says, "Note that there might not be a registry of these subtags."  I


The extension subtags may be defined (by listing them) only in the RFC
defining the extension. Or, as in the current draft, refer (in part) to
*another* registry; in the case of the current draft: the IANA language
subtag registry; ok, that is a registry, but not specifically for that
extension.



Den 2011-07-07 23:00, skrev "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>rg>:

> I can't find any indication of where within CLDR the list of allowable
values
> will be located.  Saying they're in core.zip is almost useless. 
Saying
> they're in common/bcp47 is better, but I'd still like to know
w

I agree that "URL: http://www.unicode.org/Public/cldr/latest/core.zip"quot;,
referring to a rather larger zip-file, containing *lots* of other stuff,
*unrelated* to the registry (for the "mechanisms" part) for this extension,
is highly unsatisfactory. It shouldn't be a zip-file (nor any other kind of
non-plain-text file; though a directory with plain text files would be ok),
and it should be a URL to *only* the registry for the extension.


    /Kent K




Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T