RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
"David Dalby" <daviddalby@linguasphere.info> Thu, 02 August 2007 06:33 UTC
Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUFV-0000YQ-2u; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:33:29 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUFU-0000YF-Fb for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:33:28 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUFU-0000Y4-2Y for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:33:28 -0400
Received: from customermail2.easily.co.uk ([212.53.64.53]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGUFS-0004tM-JD for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:33:28 -0400
Received: from [86.132.150.255] (account ya7to240sqpm HELO Laptop) by customermail2.easily.co.uk (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP id 110026800; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:33:24 +0100
From: David Dalby <daviddalby@linguasphere.info>
To: 'Addison Phillips' <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 07:33:24 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
Thread-Index: AcfUgZ8whcgjJ95XTaqOC4HEvukBrgASysEQ
In-Reply-To: <46B0F8BD.7050503@yahoo-inc.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138
Message-ID: <auto-000110026800@customermail2.easily.co.uk>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 057ebe9b96adec30a7efb2aeda4c26a4
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Thank you very much for your helpful e-mail. I shall try to observe the conventions you have set out, and to respond if anything further suggests itself. I also am just trying to catch up, after an absence on language research (including some of the practical implications and applications of tagging). David (Dalby) The Linguasphere Observatory Hebron SA34 0XT Wales -----Original Message----- From: Addison Phillips [mailto:addison@yahoo-inc.com] Sent: 01 August 2007 22:19 To: David Dalby Cc: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk; 'Marion Gunn'; 'LTRU Working Group' Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... David, There is nothing wrong in terms of the *meaning* of your sentence :-). However, as a contributor, I suggested an alternative phrasing that also took into account other's suggestions on list, including a paragraph structure previously approved by this WG. I have not seen a groundswell of support for any particular version of the paragraph, so the issue is also not closed yet. David Dalby wrote: > Addison, You seem to have missed the second in my quick sequence of two > e-mails. No, I just don't feel obliged to respond to every email in the thread. > What is wrong with the simple statement (?): The proposed text is imprecisely worded. When suggesting replacement text, if you do not fully and completely spell it out, the editor is likely to need to edit it for consistency, which can defeat the proposed purpose. I attempted to take each person's suggestions and combine them into a single proposed text (or exclude bits of text or suggestions for various reasons expressed on the thread). Note: my proposals are always made as a contributor to the list and not as one of the editors. > > "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. This text has several editorial problems with it. - We say "language tag", never "langtag" - The word "may" is one of the normative words from RFC 2119. We never use it except with its normative meaning. - As noted previously, we have defined "valid" to have a specific meaning. "Formally" is superfluous and could be confusing as a result. - We always spell out the Latin abbreviations "e.g." and "i.e." using their English equivalents ("for example" and "in other words"). Finally, you didn't include the example text itself, which includes some non-simple statements. I note that minor edits suggested out of context often make no sense when they are inserted in context. I fine it best to be careful to quote the entire proposed paragraph each time and in full to help avoid this. As a result, your suggestion is actually: <t> A language tag might be valid but remain unrealized in meaning. For example, a tag such as "ar-Cyrl-CO" (Arabic, Cyrillic script, as used in Colombia) is both valid and unlikely to represent a useful combination of language attributes. </t> So, finally, the substantive part: I think that the phrase "remain unrealized in meaning" is somewhat obscure. A newbie, especially one who cannot avail herself of this list's mail archive, will have no idea what we're talking about. Thus I prefer my (actually an adaptation of Peter's) "might not represent any real language usage". Note that this formulation does allow for it to either have or acquire real language usage in the future. > > 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. It was dealt with not-at-all in RFC's 1766, 3066, or 4646. The WG felt that some mention was warranted now. We're debating what form that mention should take. 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] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Mark Davis
- [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Martin Duerst
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Peter Constable
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Randy Presuhn
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Marion Gunn
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Marion Gunn
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Marion Gunn
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Marion Gunn
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... David Dalby
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... David Dalby
- [Ltru] The third level of conformance (Was: Updat… Stephane Bortzmeyer
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Mark Davis
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... David Dalby
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Debbie Garside
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... David Dalby
- [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Stephane Bortzmeyer
- [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Doug Ewell
- [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis... Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Addison Phillips
- RE: [Ltru] Re: Updated draft-4646bis... Peter Constable
- [Ltru] Question on variants Karen_Broome
- [Ltru] Serbo-Croatian Deprecations and Variants Karen_Broome
- Re: [Ltru] Serbo-Croatian Deprecations and Varian… Addison Phillips