Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal for a subtag registration (fr-2004-ORTOGRAF)

Addison Phillips <> Tue, 11 December 2007 19:34 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Aro-0002K4-Au; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:34:08 -0500
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Arn-0002Jv-9t for; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:34:07 -0500
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Arn-0002Jn-0C for; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:34:07 -0500
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1J2Arm-0008Gv-EY for; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:34:06 -0500
Received: from [] ( []) by (8.13.8/8.13.8/y.rout) with ESMTP id lBBJXTB1083796; Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:33:29 -0800 (PST)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent;; c=nofws; q=dns; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=QxfoPHsCyzBV1Ypsxq8RL7zWF/rrGPrK8dTQ3W7ISt5+RZ3aXNF5VJtEZCxOXEUP
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 11:33:29 -0800
From: Addison Phillips <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephane Bortzmeyer <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Proposal for a subtag registration (fr-2004-ORTOGRAF)
References: <BAY132-W9302DA377F096391875C191680@phx.gbl> <p0624080ec37f78f50b65@> <003501c83931$711bfee0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <p06240812c37f98295b9f@> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -15.0 (---------------)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Cc: LTRU Working Group <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2007 at 08:24:32AM -0800,
>  Mark Davis <> wrote 
>  a message of 43 lines which said:
>> In general, the more guidance we can provide reviewers, the more
>> defensible their actions become.
> We should ask the current Language Subtag Reviewer but I was under the
> impression that he does not want to have too much micro-management of
> its actions?

It isn't just the LSR's actions that need defense. We need to provide 
clarity to registrants and set their expectations. Ultimately, the IESG 
may be appealed to and they need guidance that non-linguistic experts 
can understand about what is valid or not for registration.

Frankly, the current LSR should have rejected in a clear and unambiguous 
manner the request from the outset, citing the specific problems in RFC 
4646 (it's not a well-formed request).

>> where it does make sense to provide better wording on what kinds of
>> things are intended for registration and what not, the better off we
>> are.
> I agree with the general goal (being precise and transparent) but I
> dispute the fact that "vanity subtags" are a serious problem, worth of
> an addition to the RFC.

+1 to both of you.

I think that obvious vanity requests would not be tolerated by the list. 
But idiosyncratic registrations ought not be ruled out. "Idiosyncratic" 
is in the eye of the beholder. Even small linguistic communities may 
find valid uses for a variant.

What we need to provide is guidance on when to register a variant versus 
when to use a private use subtag. The more clarity we provide, the 
better this will be. That, I believe, is what Mark is trying to accomplish.


Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

Ltru mailing list