IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Sun, 25 May 2008 06:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC603A6822; Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3554E3A6822 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id isWW83RJtZ7F for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mailc.microsoft.com [131.107.115.214]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A063A6818 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:23 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.44]) by tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.88.96]) with mapi; Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:23 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 23:20:21 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang
Thread-Index: Aci+DWX/Vq17M99CTQeRMmQYXyx+cQAISszw
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579562E2A40FCD@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <20080523044305.GB7960@mercury.ccil.org> <30b660a20805230851r519f5d14wd93a92494d1db1c9@mail.gmail.com> <20080523160905.GD21554@mercury.ccil.org> <30b660a20805231405q56b156c4vbb3b6abda4af3893@mail.gmail.com> <20080523225400.GB13152@mercury.ccil.org> <30b660a20805231639w1de0fda8w116662738f8c5d6a@mail.gmail.com> <20080523234427.GC13152@mercury.ccil.org> <30b660a20805231655r34486205m9362e8fe65193ae6@mail.gmail.com> <20080524001151.GD13152@mercury.ccil.org> <30b660a20805240943o44a5719r50eb8f0eaf721dca@mail.gmail.com> <20080525021640.GE13854@mercury.ccil.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080525021640.GE13854@mercury.ccil.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] my technical position on extlang
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> John Cowan


> >    - In order to specify that I want "zh" or "cmn" but no other
> languages, I
> >    have to use "zh-cjy;q=0, zh-cpx;q=0, zh-czh;q=0, zh-czo;q=0, zh-
> gan;q=0,
> >    zh-hak;q=0, zh-hsn;q=0, zh-mnp;q=0, zh-nan;q=0, zh-wuu;q=0, zh-
> yue;q=0 zh
> >    zh-cmn fr".
>
> Check.  And yet:
>
> If most users can handle most of the encompassed languages, then the
> no-extlang model is painful (you have to specify too many positive-q
> tags).  If most users can only handle a few encompassed languages, then
> the extlang model is painful (you have to specify too many zero-q tags).
> The situation is symmetrical.

My hunch is that, for most macrolanguage cases, most users would not be able to handle most of the encompassed languages. If that's the case, then you're making an argument *against* extlang.



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email