Re: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi)
"Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net> Sat, 17 March 2007 21:32 UTC
Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSgVQ-0000oL-Ms; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:32:04 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSgVP-0000mR-Ey for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:32:03 -0400
Received: from mta11.adelphia.net ([68.168.78.205]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HSgVO-0007Bq-5x for ltru@ietf.org; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:32:03 -0400
Received: from DGBP7M81 ([76.167.184.182]) by mta11.adelphia.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with SMTP id <20070317213201.WLCX2195.mta11.adelphia.net@DGBP7M81>; Sat, 17 Mar 2007 17:32:01 -0400
Message-ID: <007801c768db$b34ea230$6401a8c0@DGBP7M81>
From: Doug Ewell <dewell@adelphia.net>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <30b660a20703171149i47d09580w126aeb3f9feb8fdf@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi)
Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2007 14:32:00 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="utf-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3028
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3028
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Mark Davis wrote: > At this point, we'd be better off to add information to the registry > about related languages than we would to use the extlang structure. > That is, add "cmn-CN", because we need to have it, and have an extra > field to say that this is related in a certain way to "zh", > information that can be used in matching. I see your point (which is not the same as agreeing with it), but you still haven't convinced me that these matching filters which are too simplistic to match "zh-Hans-SG" with "zh-SG" are going to be clever enough to find the relationship between "zh" and "cmn" in the Registry. -- Doug Ewell * Fullerton, California, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/ http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Mark Davis
- Re: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Gerard Meijssen
- Re: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Doug Ewell
- Re: [Ltru] extlang Gerard Meijssen
- Re: [Ltru] extlang (was: Punjabi) Martin Duerst