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

"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Tue, 14 July 2009 17:16 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=144618e121=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
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 A049428C32A for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.561
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.561 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.038, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 l95Kckff4hXZ for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.nexbyte.net (132.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DB2728C16D for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 10:16:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.6) with ESMTP id md50009629912.msg for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:07:57 +0100
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:07:57 +0100 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=144618e121=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@ietf.org
Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:47:50 +0100
From: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: "'Doug Ewell'" <doug@ewellic.org>, "'LTRU Working Group'" <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <548832E2D1D1486EBAC82789E800224A@DGBP7M81>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:47:25 +0100
Message-ID: <1d5f01ca04a2$c495dfd0$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3350
Thread-Index: AcoEQwBttiSv7DFvRV6BpvpBHwv1YwAXxINw
In-Reply-To: <548832E2D1D1486EBAC82789E800224A@DGBP7M81>
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Tue, 14 Jul 2009 18:07:59 +0100
Cc: L.Gillam@surrey.ac.uk
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
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
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: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:16:46 -0000

Doug wrote:

> I wouldn't mind seeing supporters of ISO 639-6 put together a
> serious proposal that maintains compatibility with BCP 47
> matching logic, keeps duplicate-tag redundancy to a minimum,
> AND adds value.  I'm not sure it can be done, and I won't
> support adding 639-6 if it can't be, but I think it deserves
> a chance in the marketplace of ideas.  So far we haven't seen
> any proposal that accomplishes all three goals.

I think we pretty much worked this out a few years ago... See
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg06482.html
But as I said in my previous message, I am not quite ready yet as it will
involve some flagging of the data.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 14 July 2009 05:54
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:
> Anomaly inupcoming registry)
>
> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
>
> > As a technical contributor...
> > (1) I'm not sure how a "language tag registry update" WG could be
> > chartered that wouldn't involve tweaking existing text.  Unless
> > operational experience had demonstrated that text to be seriously
> > broken, I'd see no point in re-opening it.
>
> Of course any "real" updating activity would entail necessary
> changes to the existing text.  I'm not talking about that
> when I say "tweaking."
> I'm talking about the endless lily-gilding, adding more and
> more caveats and examples for existing edge cases and
> inserting new sections to cover the most extreme corner
> cases, almost as if, as you put it, the BCP were to be
> implemented by automatons instead of breathing humans.
>
> > As co-chair...
> > (2) Is there any purpose for which you could conceive of a
> > rechartering of the WG that you *would* support?
>
> I wouldn't mind seeing supporters of ISO 639-6 put together a
> serious proposal that maintains compatibility with BCP 47
> matching logic, keeps duplicate-tag redundancy to a minimum,
> AND adds value.  I'm not sure it can be done, and I won't
> support adding 639-6 if it can't be, but I think it deserves
> a chance in the marketplace of ideas.  So far we haven't seen
> any proposal that accomplishes all three goals.
>
> --
> 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  ^
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>