IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage

Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr> Wed, 21 May 2008 07:43 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 8E71A28C179; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:43:43 -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 30E6928C182 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.249
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.249 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 ch3D3ohGLDVl for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (mx2.nic.fr [192.134.4.11]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5580228C179 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 May 2008 00:43:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx2.nic.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with SMTP id A85AF1C016F; Wed, 21 May 2008 09:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from relay1.nic.fr (relay1.nic.fr [192.134.4.162]) by mx2.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A33F21C015E; Wed, 21 May 2008 09:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from bortzmeyer.nic.fr (batilda.nic.fr [192.134.4.69]) by relay1.nic.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A08C4A1DA9D; Wed, 21 May 2008 09:43:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 09:43:41 +0200
From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer@nic.fr>
To: Don Osborn <dzo@bisharat.net>
Message-ID: <20080521074341.GA10815@nic.fr>
References: <mailman.494.1210865385.5128.ltru@ietf.org> <00a901c8b6f5$c04529a0$e6f5e547@DGBP7M81> <30b660a20805161108w578b6cf9g11933ca34996a596@mail.gmail.com> <005901c8b787$930f98c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <30b660a20805161309u67158b6arcb3b2df1c46db6a7@mail.gmail.com> <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561554BEB09@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <30b660a20805161415kb1172f0xa6c4dea251344bb6@mail.gmail.com> <4832C21A.4050800@malform.no> <001001c8ba85$35ef6fc0$a1ce4f40$@net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001001c8ba85$35ef6fc0$a1ce4f40$@net>
X-Operating-System: Debian GNU/Linux lenny/sid
X-Kernel: Linux 2.6.24-1-686 i686
Organization: NIC France
X-URL: http://www.nic.fr/
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14)
Cc: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Macrolanguage usage
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

On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 10:24:27AM -0400,
 Don Osborn <dzo@bisharat.net> wrote 
 a message of 11 lines which said:

> Is anyone on this list following this discussion and the evolution
> of the standard from the point of view of African languages? 

No, I have enough trouble with the languages I know (or can find
information about).

> Just yesterday I learned that a small group has translated Opera in
> Songhai and has plans to localize some other open source
> software. The tag used in the .lng file is "so??" which fills their
> need and appears to approximate most closely to the ISO 639-2 code
> "son" - the latter representing a cluster, not even a
> macrolanguage. 

It is not clear why they did not use the standard code "son". They are
looking for trouble. It is a valid ISO 639-2 code and "son" is a
valid language tag.

> It may be that for some purposes, localizers and content developers
> may prefer a broader tag than what is available in ISO 639-3,

Hold on, it seems an issue with ISO 639, not with us, no? I do not
mean that ISO 639 is perfect, just that we decided to build on it and,
frankly, we (LTRU / IETF) cannot certainly produce something better.

The future ISO 639-5 may help them here, if they want code for broad
language families.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email