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

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Mon, 13 July 2009 15:46 UTC

Return-Path: <petercon@microsoft.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 A3A2F3A6DFB for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.521
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YkE-lxJ+sJ4i for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (maila.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6D55B3A6E82 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk5-expfs-c107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.69.47) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.99.4; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:59 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.44]) by tk5-expfs-c107.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.69.47]) with mapi; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 08:46:58 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: "Phillips, Addison" <addison@amazon.com>, LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
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: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357956B0B1AA02B@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB579874@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA01AB579874@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
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-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, 13 Jul 2009 15:46:32 -0000

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] 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: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:51 PM
To: ietf-languages@iana.org
Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry

Hi -

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

Randy
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijssen@openprogress.org>
To: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
Cc: <ietf-languages@iana.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2009 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: Anomaly in upcoming registry


Hoi,
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.
Thanks,
       Gerard

2009/7/13 Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>

> 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
> http://www.ewellic.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
>


_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru