IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Tue, 27 May 2008 06:11 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 95AF63A6B5D; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:12 -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 46D3C3A6B5D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 LeCsNPUeLG8D for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com (mail1.microsoft.com [131.107.115.212]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BE093A6AEC for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.88.96) by TK5-EXGWY-E801.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.240.5; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:14 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.39]) by tk5-exhub-c103.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.88.96]) with mapi; Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:14 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 23:11:13 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
Thread-Index: Aci/pjihkdCzquBDTwqbPL/M1pWqvwAGLvlb
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E561573585C0@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <008a01c8bedc$72b97b20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer> <30b660a20805252132g28ff50b0kd5b04d6f47ca35d2@mail.gmail.com> <002001c8bef3$e0497520$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>, <30b660a20805262003j21fff6c4tf20d59be11f28633@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <30b660a20805262003j21fff6c4tf20d59be11f28633@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
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: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0833933760=="
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

> As to my remark earlier, RFC4646 says nothing about macrolanguages..
2.2.2 Clearly states that "extlang" is reserved for future standardization.  Enough information is given that eager early adopters could've coded for that as well.

> ... that the Accept-Language value meaning 'Mandarin then French' would be

 *   under RFC 4646: "zh, fr"
 *   under this proposal: "zh-cmn, zh, fr, zh-cjy;q=0, zh-cpx;q=0, zh-czh;q=0, zh-czo;q=0, zh-gan;q=0, zh-hak;q=0, zh-hsn;q=0, zh-mnp;q=0, zh-nan;q=0, zh-wuu;q=0, zh-yue;q=0".

Under RFC 4646 "zh, fr" doesn't mean "Mandarin, then French" it means "Chinese, then french".



Under the latest draft "cmn, zh, fr" also wouldn't mean "Mandarin, then French", it'd be "Mandarin, then Chinese, then French".  Without the "zh" you'd fail to match legacy data.



I'm truly on the fence, leaning a bit toward no-extlang, and if extlang was permitted, then only allow it in explicit cases like Chinese, however your statements seem to ignore the problems with a no-extlang solution.  It is also unclear to me if you want "zh" to be an alias for Mandarin.  From your comments above it would seem that you do.  I don't think that's acceptable, I think that "zh" must allow for the possibility that the language may not be Mandarin.



- Shawn



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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email