Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

["Broome, Karen" <[e-mail]>]

Mark,

What is the shortest ISO 639 code for Mandarin?

Karen

>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail]
>[mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Mark Davis
>Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 11:52 AM
>To: Broome, Karen
>Cc: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
>
>Here is a brief description:
>
>
>*      Map deprecated codes to the canonical codes*. Thus "zh-yue"
>maps to "yue", and identifies Cantonese, "zh-hakka" maps to "hak",
>and so on.
>
>       *       * There are a few exceptions to this where we use the
>deprecated form as the canonical form, for backwards compatibility,
>eg "iw" for "he".
>
>
>       *       We have yet to decide what to do with codes that are
>illegal in 4646, but where the intent is clear, like "zh-yue-Hant-
>HK"; I suspect that we'll also remap those also, eg "zh-yue-Hant-
>HK".
>
>
>*      We don't want to deal with irregular codes, so any that can't
>be resolved by this mapping are disallowed (there is a separate
>thread on that). Luckily in draft 14 there are only a small handful
>of those.
>*      For lookup, use the kind of fallback that Addison outlined,
>taking into account backward compatibility considerations like the
>fact that "zh-TW" was used to represent "zh-Hant".
>
>
>       *       cmn-Hant-TW
>       *       zh-Hant-TW
>       *       cmn-Hant
>       *       zh-Hant
>       *       cmn-TW
>       *       zh-TW
>       *       cmn
>       *       zh
>
>*      We have fallbacks that are unrelated to macro/micro, like
>Romanian-Moldavian, Filipino-Tagalog, and I'd expect to add to that
>list over time as we support additional languages. Mandarin might be
>a good fallback for, say, Gan; but Spanish might be a better
>fallback for various Quechua encompassed languages. Each case has to
>be decided on its own merits as it comes up: we've found that
>macrolanguage is not very useful for the goal to "give the user what
>s/he wants/needs".
>*      Because extlang brings no benefit and only complications, if
>BCP 47 were to adopt it, I suspect we would cease trying to be
>conformant to BCP 47 internally.
>
>Mark
>
>On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Broome, Karen
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>       Mark writes:
>
>       >If identification is what you want, then "cmn" IS
>unambigously
>       >Mandarin (indeterminate script);
>
>
>       But is "cmn" the tag you will use, Mark?
>
>
>       >The string "zh-yue" is really a different semantic; it is not
>just
>       >Cantonese, it is "Cantonese-but-fall-back-to-ambiguously-
>Chinese-of-
>       >indeterminate-script" in lookup (but not some other
>operations like
>       >RFC 4646 filtering).
>
>
>       The fallback is *NOT*, I repeat *NOT*, part of the semantic of
>that tag. ISO defines the semantics of the tags and fallback has
>nothing to do with identifying languages.
>
>       My issue is this: If I look at my real-world language list and
>the codes I've assigned, I think everyone on this list would agree
>that the codes I've chosen based on the IANA registry and RFC 4646
>are the best tags for that content. I have codes for everything I
>need today, thanks to the patient guidance of everyone on this list.
>
>       However, when RFC 4646bis is released, it seems like I will be
>using different tags than everyone else on this list and we will no
>longer agree on what the best tag is. I fear the subtleties in the
>rules may prove tougher to explain than today's rules which already
>cause some eyerolling. Considering this, I start to wonder if the
>release of RFC 4646bis is a step backward or forward. While I'm
>happy there's a tag for Broome Pearling Lugger Pidgin in ISO 639-3,
>I don't have any personal need for it.
>
>       Regards,
>
>       Karen Broome
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>Mark
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru