IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com> Wed, 04 June 2008 03:08 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 40ED83A6C10; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:08:34 -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 EA1283A6C0C for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.256
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.256 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.257, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_28=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 GRLBt9YfQhWm for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:08:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (maila.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 190D03A6C04 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:08:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.46.187) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:08:34 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.46]) by tk1-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.46.187]) with mapi; Tue, 3 Jun 2008 20:08:34 -0700
From: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
To: 'LTRU Working Group' <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:08:30 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
Thread-Index: AcjCb86l6vRsciwpQgupBs8Mw6qTXwChM1JQAC9+YqAAAKAxYAAOq6oA
Message-ID: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357956333680DE7@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><6.0.0.20.2.20080527170755.05bd89c0@localhost><002f01c8c024$0dcdb5c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><6.0.0.20.2.20080528163346.074fac80@localhost><001f01c8c122$0cbcae80$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><4D25F22093241741BC1D0EEBC2DBB1DA013A84C314@EX-SEA5-D.ant.amazon.com><007601c8c1bc$84d93920$6801a8c0@oemcomputer><104f01c8c1d8$94ad6f30$0a00a8c0@CPQ86763045110><30b660a20805291559x4f6243a8pecc7ee92c2a36d9c@mail.gmail.com><E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251B4FC@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com><30b660a20805300911j1713bff0xa7e8e468e039d42@mail.gmail.com> <1EEB09866D70AA48A93C0D9EB7237F0B014C231039@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com> <5728EACBCAA0468CB77B7AA24593E0E5@streamserve.com> <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251B7EC@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
In-Reply-To: <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C251B7EC@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
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

> From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Broome, Karen


> What about the backwards compatibility of just "zh" used for Cantonese
> or Taiwanese? Sure, it will be valid, but if companies develop
> algorithms assuming that zh=Mandarin because we've advised them that
> this is a best practice even if that's not exactly what ISO says,
> that's not so backward compatible. And "zh-yue" becomes a contradiction
> in terms.

Is anyone suggesting that we recommend as best practice that algorithms assume zh = Mandarin?

The closest I have come is to say people should be aware that zh has very often been used in relation to Mandarin resources/content, and that they should evaluate what that may imply for their scenarios.




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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email