Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-transliteration-tags-01.txt
"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> Thu, 21 July 2011 10:11 UTC
Return-Path: <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BF6321F87BC for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:11:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.76
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.76 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, GB_I_LETTER=-2, HELO_EQ_JP=1.244, HOST_EQ_JP=1.265, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zgSyy3PuyUDS for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp [133.2.20.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 743DB21F88B7 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 03:11:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp ([133.2.20.226]) by acintmta01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp (secret/secret) with SMTP id p6LABrC3026175 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:11:53 +0900
Received: from (unknown [133.2.206.133]) by acmse01.acbb.aoyama.ac.jp with smtp id 1262_fc26_db7b0f0a_b381_11e0_8ad4_001d096c5b62; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:11:53 +0900
Received: from [IPv6:::1] ([133.2.210.5]:44546) by itmail.it.aoyama.ac.jp with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <S1531992> for <ltru@ietf.org> from <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>; Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:11:56 +0900
Message-ID: <4E27FB38.7050108@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 19:11:04 +0900
From: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Organization: Aoyama Gakuin University
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100722 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Mark Davis ☕ <mark@macchiato.com>
References: <002701cc29f8$7c3e7d00$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <BANLkTinv4kB7X_hx6N7=B2-1QO8x3EoosA@mail.gmail.com> <4DF80CD1.1090907@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <000e01cc2b80$563628e0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <2CB55BFC7405E94F830537BD924318D5EBF06DE3BF@USSDIXMSG11.am.sony.com> <003d01cc2b84$af13f560$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <BANLkTi=88jBLkn3eQM6OqALJt87B1APaWg@mail.gmail.com> <4E003C87.5090009@it.aoyama.ac.jp> <BANLkTikyx-YPZQNN1PoHGwGz=WHOxbDRtg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTikyx-YPZQNN1PoHGwGz=WHOxbDRtg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>, court@infiauto.com
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-transliteration-tags-01.txt
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 21 Jul 2011 10:11:58 -0000
Sorry this is a late reply. On 2011/06/22 1:00, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: > Those are good issues; thanks for raising them and starting the discussion. > Comments below. > > ------------------------------ > Mark > *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 23:39, "Martin J. Dürst"<duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>wrote: > >> Hello Mark, others, >> >> Overall comment: >> The idea to reuse language tags to indicate transliteration/transcription >> source, and to add some additional tags to distinguish methods seems to be >> reasonable and sound. >> >> The description of the structure of the allowed subtags and of the >> responsibility split between IETF (this draft) and UTC (UTS 35) looks quite >> messy to me, and should be cleaned up. I'd personally prefer that UTS 35 (or >> whatever else on the Unicode side) only define the<mechanism> part (after >> the m0 subtag). >> > > That would be my preference as well (can't speak for my coauthors). > > We patterned it this way following what ended up being accepted for the -u- > extension. That is, the spec is in UTS35, but there is a summary here. I didn't like that then, I have to admit. > But > of course, there are many ways to do it. And maybe this summary is too > detailed, at least for the mechanism part, and we could just have it in > UTS35. The most important thing is to make clear what is 'summary' (i.e. non-normative) and what's normative. The second most important thing is that the RFC actually define something, not just say "look over there". The Unicode side is supposed to be a registry, not a spec (I think Doug already pointed that out.). > We considered a number of alternatives: > > - We could define everything after -t- to be the source language, and > everything after -m- to be the mechanism. But that burns 2 extension > letters, just one. > - We also considered having everything in the -u extension, for which we > already have the structure set up. However, that would force us to have > artificial source subtags like 'en0' instead of 'en', because the -u- > extension wouldn't allow the 2-letter subtags (it already defines a use for > them). > - We could also have -t- be just the source, and define the mechanism in > -u-, also easy. But we felt it would be better to have everything under one > extension. This is the technical aspect, where I think you got it right. What I'm talking about above are questions of what spec says what. >> Detailled comments: >> BCP47 required information: The first three paragraphs should move to the >> introduction. >> > > Other authors, what do you think? In version -03, we have two sections titled "Introduction". Not a good sign for a spec. >> "followed by a sequence of subtags that would form a language tag": Here >> and in general: Don't use 'would'. >> > > Grammatically, it is that the sequence of subtags *would* form a language > subtag if they *were* separated out. They are not actually a language tag, > because they occur in the middle of another language subtag. How would you > like that to be phrased? I think "sequence of subtags that form a language tag" is fine. >>>>>> >> The structure of 't' subtags is determined by the Unicode CLDR >> Technical Committee, in accordance with the policies and procedures >> in http://www.unicode.org/**consortium/tc-procedures.html<http://www.unicode.org/consortium/tc-procedures.html>, >> and subject >> to the Unicode Consortium Policies on >> http://www.unicode.org/**policies/policies.html<http://www.unicode.org/policies/policies.html> >> . >>>>>> >> >> >> The following paragraph is also difficult to understand. I wouldn't know >> exactly what falls on what side. I think one major reason is that we are >> treading new ground here, it's the first time we have a singleton definition >> that allows reuse of language tags (with a few restrictions) as well as >> intends to define its own extensions. >> > > These were both patterned after what was used for the -u- extension. We can > take a look at them to try to clarify. Please do. Regards, Martin. >>>>>> >> Changes that can be made by successive versions of LDML [UTS35] by >> the Unicode Consortium without requiring a new RFC include the >> allocation of new subtags for use after the 't' extension. A new RFC >> would be required for material changes to an existing 't' subtag, or >> an incompatible change to the overall syntactic structure of the 't' >> extension; however, such a change would be contrary to the policies >> of the Unicode Consortium, and thus is not anticipated. >>>>>> >> >> 2.1 Summary: There seems to be quite some overlap between the part of >> section 2 before the 2.1 heading. >> >> >> One question I would have as a linguistic researcher is: How much effort >> and time is involved in getting a 'mechanism' approved? If such 'mechanisms' >> are e.g. rejected with arguments like "if we accept it, then everybody has >> to implement it" or so, then I would see that as a problem. >> > > Good point. I'll propose some text. > > >> >> So much for the moment. >> >> >> Regards, Martin. >> >> >> >> On 2011/06/18 6:07, Mark Davis ☕ wrote: >> >>> Yoshito, Addison, and I had had an action for a while now from the CLDR >>> committee to submit a draft for a an extension. Rather than go through all >>> the problems in the falk draft, we put together an alternative approach, >>> leveraging the work we already did for the -u- extension. >>> >>> It just got posted at >>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/**draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-00> >>> >>> Courtney, I think this provides a superset of the functionality that you >>> are >>> interested in. Perhaps you can read it over, and we can add you as an >>> author >>> of the next version of this draft instead of having the two competing >>> proposals. >>> >>> Mark >>> >>> *— Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —* >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 10:50, Randy Presuhn >>> <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>**wrote: >>> >>> Hi - >>>> >>>> I started out with an off-list response, but I figure this is >>>> something worth sending to the list. >>>> >>>> Off-list, a contributor asked: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>>> I'd love to see your input. I'd like to make sure I understand >>>>> all the concerns. Is there any way you could forward this to the list? >>>>> >>>> >>>> My response: >>>> >>>> Sorry, already deleted. As I recall, the main concerns were >>>> >>>> (1) there already *is* support for identifying orthographies >>>> (remember German?) >>>> (2) the I-D seems to assume that transliterations always result >>>> in "Latin" (previous discussion on LTRU included transliterations >>>> to Cyrillic and Hangul, among others) >>>> (3) the "original orthography" is irrelevant for the transliteration >>>> systems I've been able to think of. (At the same time, some >>>> transliteration systems are quite "lossy" and some don't do >>>> "round trip" very well.) Consider also the transliteration of >>>> material >>>> which was originally in audio form... >>>> (4) The draft doesn't clearly distinguish "orthography" from >>>> "transliteration". >>>> This may be because the boundary between the two can be fuzzy, but >>>> even >>>> that is an issue that should be addressed. >>>> (5) How this fits in with *transcription* systems (e.g. IPA) should be >>>> addressed. The boundary gets fuzzy with orthographies that are >>>> equivalent >>>> to phonemic representations of the language. (e.g., Pinyin for >>>> Mandarin) >>>> (6) The proposed singleton usage appears broken and unnecessary. >>>> >>>> Or something like that. I may have forgotten something here, or, in the >>>> process of reconstruction, thought of something I missed the first time. >>>> >>>> Randy >>>> >>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> Ltru mailing list >>>> Ltru@ietf.org >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ltru<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> Ltru mailing list >>> Ltru@ietf.org >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/**listinfo/ltru<https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru> >>> >> >
- [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-transliteration… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… John Cowan
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Randy Presuhn
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Courtney Falk
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Mark Davis ☕
- Re: [Ltru] Fw: I-D Action: draft-falk-translitera… Martin J. Dürst