Re: [Ltru] Extended language tags

"Andrew Cunningham" <lang.support@gmail.com> Fri, 05 October 2007 01:02 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 1IdbaW-0007Cx-FH; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:02:44 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IdbaT-00078j-It for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:02:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdbaT-0006zJ-8f for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:02:41 -0400
Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.227]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IdbaJ-0000lG-3h for ltru@ietf.org; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:02:37 -0400
Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 70so298598wra for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:01:36 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=i3TcOIQ0iaP2yKiMTJefkc76XuLUGDggCY9uEtC9Mlg=; b=B1pCRXzj5vyAVFPY+ambWAlh0j0Ma1QucPTdxLwTP5zSpLOJYAXF0iIe9ezrMSsUap9u4c/DswpW2TyRwDVv+FRoCwgjunH84AO6BPnZZ1hT5xd//yD02FMhMZrF4tuW3ftHPmtWGFWBITgwx45uoa3lawPCCvQBVsJFwHKCXXU=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=DVfXvtZHZtsjCcoJ6uHBiS/mZWbHBSZNwnKafh/sLwHTFURsBxwht7GkdMEJRI/v1HL/3p/xuapK2FWmy1Zz4xDB6/LWfHK9Q70MCPwHoSE0Yxn5FyB+7DFsUwHSPw7dU4Npss/U7Qr3Oc7kFXzw3ibi5BZLG4PDltxc9anKzRw=
Received: by 10.142.163.14 with SMTP id l14mr1293278wfe.1191546095657; Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.87.14 with HTTP; Thu, 4 Oct 2007 18:01:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <9d70cb000710041801k44ee5016u7374af1e1a17f6bc@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:01:35 +1000
From: Andrew Cunningham <lang.support@gmail.com>
To: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Extended language tags
In-Reply-To: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E55A597AC370@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <E1IdT7z-0001vv-Ly@megatron.ietf.org> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E55A597AC370@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <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

Throwing in my two cents worth:

One aspect of language tagging is the preference for the tags to be as
specific as possible. In some cases it is desirable to be less
specific.

An example i mentioned on the teleconference was the case of Dinka. In
ISO-639-2 this is represented by the language code "din".

While ISO-639-3 have the following language codes:

dib  	South Central Dinka
dik 	Southwestern Dinka
dip 	Northeastern Dinka
diw 	Northwestern Dinka
dks 	Southeastern Dinka

If I was applying a langauge tag to a Rek grammar, then i'd use "dik",
for a collection of Ciec folktales I'd use "dib". For a collection of
Bor proverbs I'd use "dks".

To describe the literacy materials and class room materials being
developed in Australia by the Dinka community, I'd use "din". Within
the diaspora and in Australia specifically the literacy and language
teachers, translators and interpreters are discussing a standardized
approach to written Dinka.

The original SPLA/M education policies highlighted Rek as a standard
for written Dinka. What seems to be occurring is an amalgam based on
Rek, but including aspects and vocab from other Dinka dialects. There
will be a locally hosted conference next year to thrash out some of
the issues.

In this context "din": would be the most appropriate way of tagging
the new educational material, while keeping the existing five
iso-639-3 language tags to more accurately describe information and
data written in one of the 20 odd specific dialects.

from the perspective of the user community, an extlang approach would
make more sense, i.e. Rek labeled as "din-dik" makes more sense than
"dik". To the community Rek is a Dinka langauge, Dinak Rek, not a
separate language called Rek.

In this sense extlang reflects the communities understanding of their language.

This is just an observation, i'm neither for or against extlang.

Although from the perspective of web development and how CSS and web
browsers handle psuedo langauge selectors and attribute selectors, I'd
suggest that extlang approach simplifies things for those rare
individuals amongst us that use these selectors.

Andrew
-- 
Andrew Cunningham
State Library of Victoria, Australia

andrewc@vicnet.net.au
lang.support@gmail.com


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru