RE: [Ltru] some issues
"Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk> Wed, 28 November 2007 22:50 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 1IxVjd-0000Ix-Gs; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:50:25 -0500
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IxVjc-0000Ir-Tu for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:50:24 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxVjc-0000Ii-A3 for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:50:24 -0500
Received: from 132.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.132] helo=mx1.nexbyte.net) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IxVjW-0007yL-L8 for ltru@lists.ietf.org; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 17:50:24 -0500
Received: from 145.nexbyte.net ([62.197.41.145]) by mx1.nexbyte.net (mx1.nexbyte.net [62.197.41.132]) (MDaemon PRO v9.6.3) with ESMTP id md50007508208.msg for <ltru@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:55:04 +0000
Received: from CPQ86763045110 ([83.67.121.192]) by 145.nexbyte.net with MailEnable ESMTP; Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:50:10 +0000
From: Debbie Garside <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
To: petercon@microsoft.com, ltru@lists.ietf.org
References: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579561B42BB653@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] some issues
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:49:34 -0000
Message-ID: <00b101c83210$f3d335b0$0d00a8c0@CPQ86763045110>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB83579561B42BB653@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
Thread-Index: AcgyC/wn2+1YZuIKQ9WKB8MC2673tgAA+9IQ
X-MDHeloLookup-Result: pass smtp.helo=145.nexbyte.net (ip=62.197.41.145) (mx1.nexbyte.net)
X-MDMailLookup-Result: pass smtp.mail=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk (ip=62.197.41.145) (mx1.nexbyte.net)
X-Spam-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:55:04 +0000 (not processed: message from trusted or authenticated source)
X-MDRemoteIP: 62.197.41.145
X-Return-Path: prvs=185224a1ca=debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-Envelope-From: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: ltru@lists.ietf.org
X-MDAV-Processed: mx1.nexbyte.net, Wed, 28 Nov 2007 22:55:04 +0000
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e3901bdd61b234d82da85cc76f05a7e8
Cc:
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============2008776868=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Hi Peter As you know many of these will be facilitated by ISO 639-6 which will be submitted for FDIS vote before end of December 2007. There is scope to discuss the inclusion of ISO 639-6 within RFC4646bis according to the charter. I don't see any harm in having a discussion on this but as far as inclusion within RFC4646bis is concerned I think publication as IS will be too late; in any case, I know people here don't want to hold up the inclusion of ISO 639-3. IMHO, the WG should be rechartered after publication of RFC4646bis to include ISO 639-6 once published. Best regards Debbie _____ From: Peter Constable [mailto:petercon@microsoft.com] Sent: 28 November 2007 22:14 To: ltru@lists.ietf.org Subject: [Ltru] some issues I was replying to mail yesterday from someone at my company raising concerns with language-identification issues. His understanding was not at all up to date, so I was trying to fill him in on some things. I tried to think of a cross-section of issues we (mainly MS) are facing with representative cases and though of the following off the top of my head. Just thought I'd share it: 1. We have to distinguish between different written forms for a language (script or orthography differences - e.g. Serbian in Cyrillic versus Latin script; English with US versus UK spelling). 2. We have to support dialect distinctions in some cases (e.g. Brazilian vs. Iberian Portuguese). 3. We have to recognize language differences that for years have been glossed over (e.g. "Chinese" really encompasses multiple, distinct languages, including Mandarin versus Cantonese). 4. We occasionally have to support quasi-dialectal variations - resources tailored to cover multiple markets but not really corresponding to a particular dialect (e.g. Latin American Spanish) 5. We are starting to support some neo-development languages in cases where there's a chain of closely related languages but we have to identify a particular language in our product, yet history is yet to unfold as to which varieties will become more developed than the others (e.g. Quechua). 6. Changing geo-politics that sometimes carry language-identity issues (but with dubious linguistic bases for differentiation, at least at present) in their wake (e.g. "Montenegrin") Peter Microsoft has an open Program Management position working on international text and fonts. For details, go to: <http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.aspx?JobID=69CF50EA-5FB 5-47C8-9083-FCE0EF9CF547> http://members.microsoft.com/careers/search/details.aspx?JobID=69CF50EA-5FB5 -47C8-9083-FCE0EF9CF547
_______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
- [Ltru] some issues Peter Constable
- RE: [Ltru] some issues Debbie Garside
- RE: [Ltru] some issues Peter Constable