Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Fri, 16 May 2008 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E3D3A6B5E; Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:31 -0700 (PDT)
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 02D7F3A6B5E for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.54
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.54 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.059, 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 f6YSIKvK+rG8 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (smtp.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C7C83A6B56 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.97) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:22 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.44]) by tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.88.97]) with mapi; Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:21 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2008 09:54:20 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage
Thread-Index: Aci3JsQR79pXsZVBSjCDjtvmPhwOZgANuV+wAAEc12AABLVl4A==
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E143D759@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <mailman.494.1210865385.5128.ltru@ietf.org> <00a901c8b6f5$c04529a0$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E143D665@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A118FF0@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com>
In-Reply-To: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A118FF0@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
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

> From: Phillips, Addison [mailto:addison@amazon.com]


> > "zh", although they certainly can. The situation in which it's *most*
> > reasonable to tag Cantonese content "zh" is when it is understandable
> > to those that read Mandarin -- meaning it's understandable by the
> vast
> > majority.
>
> So we have a small impasse, indicative of the larger problem here: do
> we or do we not recommend against the use of 'zh' to tag Mandarin
> Chinese? It isn't the tagging of Cantonese that is the controversy. It
> is whether 'zh' is equated with Mandarin.

Again, I don't see why what I said is interpreted as equating 'zh' with Mandarin. I'm completely opposed to that. Re carefully the text that Mark sent: nowhere does it say, "If your content is Mandarin, you SHOULD use 'zh'," or, "It can be assumed that content tagged 'zh' is in Mandarin."



Peter
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru