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

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

Hi Addison

It is this phrase " Validity of a tag is not everything."  that I
particularly dislike. But if the WG wish to adopt it who am I to disagree
;-)

Mine was longwinded though.

As to editorial in nature, is that not, partly, what this is about?  I have
been away from the WG for a while so am playing catch-up.  If you just
require technical comment I will be quiet on this.

Best

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: 01 August 2007 22:10
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: 'David Dalby'; 'Marion Gunn'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Updated draft-4646bis...
> 
> > 
> > The syntax of a language sub tag is such that it is 
> possible to create 
> > a valid subtag where the sum of its component attributes may not 
> > represent a meaningful combination within actual language 
> usage.  For example, etc.
> 
> I think my proposal says that (even allowing for 
> s/subtag/tag/) far more nicely than this quite complex 
> sentence. I also like Stephane's original proposal (around 
> which mine is based and which was approved by this WG
> previously) in many ways.
> 
> > 
> > Or
> > 
> > Validity of a language subtag does not necessarily make it 
> meaningful. A
> > subtag can be valid in terms of syntax yet meaningless in 
> terms of real
> > language usage. For example, etc.
> 
> No. This runs up against what Mark said before. The tag always has a 
> meaning. It just might not be a meaningful meaning :-). But 
> saying so in 
> a waggish way in an email is not the same as saying so in the 
> document.
> 
> I also fail to see how your proposal is any different from the 
> equivalent portion of the proposed paragraph:
> 
>  >> Validity of a tag is not everything. While every valid tag
>  >> has a meaning, it might not represent any real language
>  >> usage.
> 
> It is very helpful if you look at the text in the context of the 
> document and provide full paragraphs of proposal. The 
> difference between 
> your proposals and mine (when excluding the examples) are 
> editorial in 
> nature.
> 
> Addison
> 
> 
> -- 
> Addison Phillips
> Co-Editor -- RFC 4646bis
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Best
> > 
> > Debbie 
> > 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Addison Phillips [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> >> Sent: 01 August 2007 16:52
> >> To: David Dalby
> >> Cc: [e-mail]; '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:[e-mail]]
> >>> Sent: 01 August 2007 13:44
> >>> To: [e-mail]; '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:[e-mail]]
> >>>> 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
> >>>> [e-mail]
> >>>> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Ltru mailing list
> >>> [e-mail]
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 






_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru