Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

But I still don't see why it needs to be taken out of IETF.  Where is the added value?  Where are discussions held?  Why create another list when we already have IETF-languages?

I am not trying to be obstructive and I am a supporter of Unicode but I do believe these sort of questions need answering.

I really like the IETF structure as I feel it is very inclusive whereas Unicode can be exclusive.  The damage that is done when controversial issues are raised and non-voting experts are over-ridden by those who pay for votes can actually put development back years as we lose those volunteers who work so fastidiously. I have heard from a colleague who has been instrumental in adding 100 locales to CLDR that many volunteers are disillusioned and have stopped contributing.  I would hate for IETF to find that they agree to "outsource" this work and then find that their volunteer experts disappear.

I really need to be shown the added value of outsourcing this work. I am open to being persuaded.

Best regards

Debbie

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Roozbeh Pournader
Sent: 07 July 2011 21:48
To: Debbie Garside
Cc: 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'; 'Pete Resnick'; 'LTRU Working Group'; 'CLDR list'
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

Not at all.

You definitely get a say. You don't even need to be an individual member
to get a say. Then the responsible committee discusses the issue and
tries to arrive at consensus. In very few cases, there's a vote.

In my experience of being in contact with the Unicode Consortium for
more than a decade now (and I never had the right to vote), I'd say they
are very considerate of expert opinions. They are a meritocracy, not a
democracy of full members. Votes are only rarely used to decide about
very controversial issues. And there aren't many of those.

Roozbeh

On Thu, 2011-07-07 at 21:40 +0100, Debbie Garside wrote:
> Thank you.  This confirms what I thought.  You pay your money you get
> a vote but individual members (such as me) get no say.
> 
>  
> 
> Sorry but I cannot agree with this.  It goes against the IETF ethos.  
> 
>  
> 
> Best regards
> 
>  
> 
> Debbie
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Mark Davis ?
> Sent: 07 July 2011 21:07
> To: Debbie Garside
> Cc: Mykyta Yevstifeyev; Pete Resnick; LTRU Working Group; CLDR list
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
> 
> 
>  
> 
> These are not primary language subtags or variants, as covered by
> BCP47. That still remains as it has been.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> This is a different area, part of an extension that is to provide a
> structured approach to the specification of transliteration. The
> development of extensions and their scope is covered by BCP47, and you
> can find the details there.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> The Unicode CLDR committee is already serves as the registrar for the
> -u- extension. The committee operates under the procedures in
> http://unicode.org/consortium/tc-procedures.html, but the vast
> majority of decisions are taken by consensus. The consortium is
> already the Registration Authority for ISO 15924 (Scripts).
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 09:00, Debbie Garside
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> I am also concerned about the structure of the Unicode Committee and
> voting rights. Perhaps someone can explain how this will work and why
> it is required in addition to the current structure for the
> registration of language tags.
> 
>  
> 
> Have I missed something here? (I probably have as I have been away
> from the list for some time)  Have Unicode already taken over some of
> the duties of the BCP47 registrar?
> 
>  
> 
> Best wishes
> 
>  
> 
> Debbie
> 
>  
> 
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
> Of Mark Davis ?
> 
> 
> Sent: 07 July 2011 15:43
> To: Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> Cc: Pete Resnick; [e-mail]
> 
> 
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext
> 
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for the feedback. We can make those corrections.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> One question. The primary reason that we chose to use a BCP was
> primarily because it provided a stable reference; the underlying RFCs
> can (and have) changed while "BCP47" has remained the same. Listing
> the current RFCs somewhat undercuts that. Note: if that is the
> practice we should do it, but it seems odd.
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Mark
> 
> 
> — Il meglio è l’inimico del bene —
> 
> On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 20:55, Mykyta Yevstifeyev <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've identified the following issue in the draft.
> 
> Section 2.2 says:
> 
> 
> 
>    The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form:
>  
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>      | Label  | ABNF                    | Comment                    |
>  
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
>      | t_ext= | "t"                     | Extension                  |
>      |        | ("-" lang *("-" field)  | Source + optional field(s) |
>      |        | / 1*("-" field))        | Field(s) only (no source)  |
>      | lang=  | language                | [BCP47], with restrictions |
>      |        | ["-" script]            |                            |
>      |        | ["-" region]            |                            |
>      |        | *("-" variant)          |                            |
>      | field= | sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum) | With restrictions          |
>      | sep=   | 1ALPHA 1DIGIT           | Subtag separators          |
>      +--------+-------------------------+----------------------------+
> 
> 
> I should note that, first of all, reference to RFC 5234 is missing;
> moreover, and this is more important, making the ABNF definition in
> the form of table makes such definition an invalid one, in terms of
> RFC 5234.  Also, there are a number of ABNF nits here.  So, please
> consider changing this to:
> 
> 
> 
>    The subtags in the 't' extension are of the following form, defined
>    using ABNF [RFC5234] in <t-ext> rule:
>  
>      t-ext    = "t" ("-" lang *("-" field) / 1*("-" field))
>      lang     = langtag
>      field    = sep 1*("-" 3*8alphanum)
>      sep      = ALPHA DIGIT
>      alphanum = ALPHA / DIGIT
>  
>    where <langta> rule is specified in BCP 47 [BCP47], <ALPHA> and <DIGIT>
>    rules - in RFC 5234 [RFC5234].
> 
> Also, the minors comments on references.  Reference to BCP 47 should
> include both references to RFC 5646 and RFC 4647, like:
> 
>    [BCP47]    Phillips, A. and M. Davis, "Matching of Language Tags", 
>               BCP 47, RFC 4647, September 2006.
>  
>               Phillips, A., Ed., and M. Davis, Ed., "Tags for Identifying
>               Languages", BCP 47, RFC 5646, September 2009.
> 
> ...and, referencing UTS 35 you shouldn't reference specific parts of
> the document; this should be done in the text.  Finally, I don't see
> where [US-ASCII] is used in the text.
> 
> Thanks,
> Mykyta Yevstifeyev
> 
> 
> 
> 07.07.2011 2:49, Pete Resnick wrote: 
> 
> Most of the people on the ietf-languages list are probably on the
> [e-mail] list as well, but I wanted to confirm that everyone got
> a chance to review this before it proceeded to the IESG. Please have a
> look at the ltru archive
> <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/maillist.html> and
> send any comments to the [e-mail] list since that's where
> discussion seems to be taking place.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> pr
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>  
> 
>