Re: [Ltru] a modest proposal...

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Thu, 29 May 2008 20:29 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 A021A3A6B7B; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:29:16 -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 861033A68B6 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[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 BtWNBDlc-hCn for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailb.microsoft.com [131.107.115.215]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79E6B3A685C for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:28:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.18.48) by TK5-EXGWY-E802.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:28:38 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.46]) by TK5-EXHUB-C101.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.18.48]) with mapi; Thu, 29 May 2008 13:28:35 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:28:34 -0700
Thread-Topic: a modest proposal...
Thread-Index: AcjBw5BlRJZHduEQRBGmurf+XW+6jgAAhYBQAAEiR4A=
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB835795633304EB85@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C706@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561BF7D8385@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561BF7D8385@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.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] a modest proposal...
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

It's a proposal that (whether with or without Shawn's variation) might be just the right compromise. (See my comments in another mail I just posted.)

We would still need to have text giving clear guidance on how to tag for Chinese.


Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Shawn Steele
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:54 PM
> To: Phillips, Addison; LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] a modest proposal...
>
> I would either like that, or the same thing, except where cmn and yue
> are allowed as aliases of zh-cmn & zh-yue
>
> - Shawn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Phillips, Addison
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 12:38 PM
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] a modest proposal...
>
> Since:
>
> 1. We appear to be stuck.
> 2. We (most of us, anyway) would like to see this work completed.
> 3. We haven't a compelling-enough technical argument that resolves the
> issue.
>
> I would like to submit a "modest proposal" for addressing the impasse:
>
> 1. Restore a *single* extlang to the ABNF.
> 2. Keep the Macrolanguage field in the registry for all encompassed
> languages, which information may be use by implementations however
> makes the most sense.
> 3. Cherry pick *only* the 'zh' (and possibly the 'ar') encompassed
> languages for registration as extlangs. This is done in the name of
> compatibility alone. 4. Permit implementations to treat the 'language'
> production as atomic (that is, the sequence "zh-yue" MAY be treated as
> if it were a single subtag but MAY be treated as separate subtags,
> notably by existing implementations). Note that the 'language'
> production is the one that includes both the primary and extended
> language subtags.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Addison
>
> Addison Phillips
> Globalization Architect -- Lab126
>
> Internationalization is not a feature.
> It is an architecture.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru