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

Peter Constable <> Mon, 13 July 2009 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3A2F3A6DFB for <>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.521
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.521 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.078, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkE-lxJ+sJ4i for <>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D55B3A6E82 for <>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:59 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:58 -0700
From: Peter Constable <>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <>, LTRU Working Group <>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:57 -0700
Thread-Topic: rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)
Thread-Index: AcoDhjP0pruGgNzSSzq8ZllMHrw18gARtoTAAAEFrhA=
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:46:32 -0000


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Phillips, Addison
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 8:26 AM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)

Randy posted to the ietf-languages thread (below) that most of you are probably aware of, the following message. I'm cross-posting it so that I can respond.

I oppose rechartering LTRU at this time. We've completed the essential work of incorporating ISO 639-3 and our work has brought a few other enhancements. I think we've allowed sufficient room for the registration process to do its magic and handle most of the language identification community's needs. I would like to see the new document in use for awhile before we go to tinkering with it.

If ISO 639-6 were ready (as it is not), then LTRU could be reconstituted to look into whether or not to incorporate it (and if so, how). I suspect it might be a couple of years before that is upon us. In the meantime, we could use some experience with rfc-to-be-4646bis. Constant rewriting will not improve matters.

Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Lab126

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture.

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry

Hi -

Discussion of re-chartering the ltru working group belongs on
the mailing list, not here.  This is the time
for such discussions.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerard Meijssen" <>
To: "Doug Ewell" <>
Cc: <>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry

With all due respect for the diligence of the process but when you consider
the length of time it took, the ISO-639-6 will make this same process
impossible because of the amount of data involved. When this process only
starts when the publication is imminent, it will take maybe at least a
decade based on the number of new entries that ISO 639-6 will bring. That
means imho that for ISO-639-6 we will have to rethink the process. We do
have room before the publication of the new standard.. it could be seen as
pre-emptive involvement because of the huge amount of data involved.

2009/7/13 Doug Ewell <>

> Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> > There's no way that I'd be willing to start another round of ltru
> > revsions to make the handling of such a hypothetical any clearer.  At
> > some point folks need to realize that the BCP is not an algorithm for
> > execution by finite state automata.  It gives guidelines to humans
> > who, one would hope, are capable of exercising a bit of common sense.
> I would hope it's blindingly obvious to Randy and everyone else that I
> agree with this statement.  I would not want to start another round of
> LTRU revisions for almost any reason.
> Every so often we talk about adding ISO 639-6 support, which would be a
> good enough reason, but only if (a) the draft and data were fully
> available for WG review, (b) ISO publication appeared imminent, and (c)
> the WG had some hope of agreeing where to put the subtags
> architecturally.
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
>  ˆ
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list


> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list

Ietf-languages mailing list
Ltru mailing list