Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-03

"Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org> Thu, 14 July 2011 15:56 UTC

Return-Path: <doug@ewellic.org>
X-Original-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B76F621F8B72 for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:56:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mp0BcR9twwTm for <ltru@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:56:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpoutwbe04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (smtpoutwbe04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net [208.109.78.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 15ACD21F863D for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:56:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 13225 invoked from network); 14 Jul 2011 15:56:11 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (72.167.218.132) by smtpoutwbe04.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net with SMTP; 14 Jul 2011 15:56:11 -0000
Received: (qmail 28115 invoked by uid 99); 14 Jul 2011 15:56:11 -0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-Originating-IP: 208.51.143.190
User-Agent: Web-Based Email 5.5.08
Message-Id: <20110714085610.665a7a7059d7ee80bb4d670165c8327d.09c5cafd0e.wbe@email03.secureserver.net>
From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
To: ltru@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 08:56:10 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] draft-davis-t-langtag-ext-03
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:56:18 -0000

Felix Sasaki <felix dot sasaki at fh dash potsdam dot de> suggested:

> The extension defined in this document is not meant to be used for
> (mostly localization related) formats that already align source and
> target text in a dedicated, often XML based structure. For example, in
> an XLIFF file aligning a source like the original writing of Italian
> cities and a target, i.e. the Japanese transliteration of the cities,
> using "ja-kana-t-it" for the target would be overgenerating. Instead
> one would use the language tag "ja-kana".

RFC 5646 does point this out in Section 4.1:

1.  Use as precise a tag as possible, but no more specific than is
    justified.  Avoid using subtags that are not important for
    distinguishing content in an application.

and sort of in Section 3.7:

   When a language tag is to be used in a specific, known protocol, it
   is RECOMMENDED that the language tag not contain extensions not
   supported by that protocol.

--
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14
www.ewellic.org | www.facebook.com/doug.ewell | @DougEwell ­