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

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

Let me elaborate further on this.  From memory, data in CLDR may be incorporated on a vote system,  This vote system is linked to the amount paid by companies by way of subscriptions.  Or am I wrong?  I seem to remember a lot of Google data being incorporated (dumped) into CLDR against the wishes of experts in the field who had been working most diligently to make sure their data was correct.  A paid for votes system is contrary to the entire ethos of IETF where, I believe, a general consensus is required rather than paid votes and affiliations are not taken into account.  This is the basis for my concern.

 

Maybe I am totally wrong and if so I apologise.  Please feel free to correct me.

 

If I am right, there is still a way for Unicode to do this, as stipulated within the RFC, but rather by recommendation to the IETF-Languages Registrar who can then invite further discussion.

 

Best wishes

 

Debbie

 

From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Debbie Garside
Sent: 07 July 2011 17:01
To: 'Mark Davis ☕'; 'Mykyta Yevstifeyev'
Cc: 'Pete Resnick'; [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Fwd: draft-davis-t-langtag-ext

 

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 <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-01#ref-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> <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