RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

Addison, You seem to have missed the second in my quick sequence of two
e-mails. What is wrong with the simple statement (?):

"A langtag may be formally valid but remain unrealized in meaning, e.g.
...."  This even allows for the unlikely event of its meaning becoming
realized.

Of course, the large majority of ALL potential langtags with subtags will
never be realized in meaning, but this very obvious point should surely be
dealt with as briefly as possible.

Regards, David

-----Original Message-----
From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] 
Sent: 01 August 2007 16:52
To: David Dalby
Cc: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Marion Gunn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

You have to read the document. The terms "valid" and "well-formed" have 

a different meaning in the context of RFC 4646/4646bis. The term "valid" 

was chosen carefully in this context.

Mark and others are correct that every tag has *a* meaning (we even 

spell out the one for the "meaningless" tag in the example). But that 

does not mean that every tag is *meaningful*.

How about this version instead:

<t>Validity of a tag is not everything. While every valid tag has a 

meaning, it might not represent any real language usage. This is 

unavoidable in a system in which subtags can be combined freely. For 

example, tags such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in 

Colombia ) or "tlh-Kore-AQ-fonipa" (Klingon, Korean script, as used in 

Antarctica, IPA phonetic transcription) are both valid and unlikely to 

represent a useful combination of language attributes.</t>

Addison

David Dalby wrote:

> I agree!

> 

> David

> 

>  _____________________________________________________

>  

> Dr David Dalby 

> The Linguasphere Observatory

> Hebron

> Whitland

> Wales

> SA34 0XT

>  

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk] 

> Sent: 01 August 2007 13:44

> To: addison@yahoo-inc.com; 'Marion Gunn'

> Cc: 'LTRU Working Group'

> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

> 

> Addison wrote:

> 

>> A tag can be valid yet meaningless.

> 

> I don't really like this as it seems, on the face of it, a contradiction
in

> terms.  I would propose one of the following:

> 

> ---

> A tag can be well formed yet meaningless.

> 

> A tag can be well formed in terms of syntax, and thus valid, yet
meaningless

> in terms of its attributes. For example, ... 

> 

> ---

> 

> Best

> 

> Debbie

> 

>> -----Original Message-----

>> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] 

>> Sent: 31 July 2007 16:52

>> To: Marion Gunn

>> Cc: LTRU Working Group

>> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...

>> 

>> Marion Gunn wrote:

>>  >

>>  > However, here goes with one more attempt:

>>  >

>>  > "For example, although a tag such as 'ar-Cyrl-CO' (Arabic, 

>> as used in  > Columbia,  > written in Cyrillic script) is 

>> valid, it is [most] unlikely to be of  > use, because  > such 

>> combination of attributes is unlikely to occur in actual 

>> language  > use."

>>  >

>> 

>> I note that it is useful to look at the actual editor's copy 

>> when suggesting minor editorial changes. Upon reflection, I 

>> found the current sentence to be a bit of a run-on. I've 

>> taken your suggestion of 'unlikely' and edited further such 

>> that the paragraph now reads:

>> 

>> <t>Validity of a tag is not everything. A tag can be valid 

>> yet meaningless. This is unavoidable with a generative system 

>> like the language subtag mechanism. For example, a tag such 

>> as "ar-Cyrl-CO" 

>> (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is perfectly valid. 

>> However, it is unlikely to be a useful tag, as it represents 

>> an unlikely combination of language attributes that is 

>> probably unrelated to any real language usage.</t>

>> 

>> After five minutes from now, you will need to comment on 

>> draft-08. I'm always happy to consider editorial changes that 

>> improve the text.

>> 

>> Addison

>> 

>> --

>> Addison Phillips

>> Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

>> Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

>> 

>> Internationalization is an architecture.

>> It is not a feature.

>> 

>> 

>> _______________________________________________

>> Ltru mailing list

>> Ltru@ietf.org

>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

>> 

>> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> _______________________________________________

> Ltru mailing list

> Ltru@ietf.org

> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

> 

> 

-- 

Addison Phillips

Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.

It is not a feature.