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

Mark Davis ⌛ <mark@macchiato.com> Sun, 19 July 2009 19:29 UTC

Return-Path: <mark.edward.davis@gmail.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 7662A3A6AC7 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.076
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.076 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 ViJPqU5Tdi3v for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gx0-f213.google.com (mail-gx0-f213.google.com [209.85.217.213]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B70F3A690F for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:29:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9so3314699gxk.13 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=C/g3aTpEjyNAqaLsQaJHbGJ3bmzCfmBxKF1CKudia7w=; b=n1T7Iue8/VUOvAwOc+MsAGuvPLdirWp/6B9sSlLU3+R1EBa/AkntmgfdVaWvS3TuBc 0o3Ka+XU4PaOMfuYl90t12Z5J644HqoC7IU6NirUD7vy0CN190ctYXScJE8sZJREhfEN tHF/0LC5L5n8rq9TK5EyZXFedvHwV/vZ/6yBQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=X66dNfk/rcC0dsKMs0NKqDqdfQpAwdZICsBku7eW8MhwQLpme9m95FR/tgkJTQ/wSR aeljq2gXhtYcK+CRBm4i9xdQEaqpNZ4pJUQddS79pvpEO8RzQNVFsXdUIo5FwECzgDOF A5uOCGpQdVkpHCKxvewEywFrofVIr5Ykzy2oY=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mark.edward.davis@gmail.com
Received: by 10.100.12.17 with SMTP id 17mr5200003anl.2.1248031742752; Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:29:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <8BA7C9A96AE849AE97FA9E1779A81D20@DGBP7M81>
References: <mailman.110.1248029268.4909.ltru@ietf.org> <8BA7C9A96AE849AE97FA9E1779A81D20@DGBP7M81>
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:29:02 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 133939b42d38e892
Message-ID: <30b660a20907191229h282c0673yae2a710c7a7a1248@mail.gmail.com>
From: =?UTF-8?B?TWFyayBEYXZpcyDijJs=?= <mark@macchiato.com>
To: Doug Ewell <doug@ewellic.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e644ddfcb1f6f5046f1408db
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
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: Sun, 19 Jul 2009 19:29:06 -0000

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
>